Elements and Notes in Criminal Law Book II by RENE CALLANTA

TITLE ONE CRIMES AGAINST NATIONAL SECURITY
Crimes against national security 1. Treason (Art. 114); 2. Conspiracy and proposal to commit treason (Art. 115); 3. Misprision of treason (Art. 116); and 4. Espionage (Art. 117). Crimes against the law of nations 1. Inciting to war or giving motives for reprisals (Art. 118); 2. Violation of neutrality (Art. 119); 3. Corresponding with hostile country (Art. 120); 4. Flight to enemy's country (Art. 121); and 5. Piracy in general and mutiny on the high seas (Art. 122).
The crimes under this title can be prosecuted even if the criminal act or acts were committed outside the Philippine territorial jurisdiction. However, prosecution can proceed only if the offender is within Philippine territory or brought to the Philippines pursuant to an extradition treaty. This is one of the instances where the Revised Penal Code may be given extra-territorial application under Article 2 (5) thereof. In the case of crimes against the law of nations, the offender can be prosecuted whenever he may be found because the crimes are regarded as committed against humanity in general.

Article 114 TREASON
ELEMENTS: a. That the offender owes allegiance to the Government of the Philippines b. That there is a war in which the Philippines is involved c. That the offender either – 1) Levies war against the government, 1. breech of allegiance 2. actual assembling of men 3. for the purpose of executing a treasonable design 2) Adheres to the enemies, giving them aid and comfort 1. breech of allegiance 2. adherence 3. giving aid or comfort to the enemy
Requirements of levying war 1) Actual assembling of men; 2) To execute a treasonable design by force; 3) Intent is to deliver the country in whole or in part to the enemy; and 4) Collaboration with foreign enemy or some foreign sovereign

* Success is not important. What matters is the actual assembly of men and the execution of treasonable design by force.
• Ways of proving treason: a. 2 witnesses testifying to same overt act > The testimonies must refer to the same act, place and moment of time. Treason cannot be proved by circumstantial evidence or by extrajudicial confession. Example: X saw arms landed in La Union and loaded into a motor vehicle. At this stage, not sufficient to convict yet. Y later saw the arms unloaded in a warehouse. Will X + Y be sufficient witnesses to convict? Answer: NO. Because the law requires that 2 witnesses see the SAME OVERT ACT.

Sigma Rho ( ΣΡ ) reviewers

1

Elements and Notes in Criminal Law Book II by RENE CALLANTA b. Confession of the accused in open court.
Arraignment, pre-trial, trial – OK. > If he has pleaded NOT guilty already during arraignment, he can still confess in open court by stating the particular acts constituting treason. > During trial, simply saying “I’m guilty” is not enough. > Withdrawing plea of “not guilty” during arraignment not necessary > If during arraignment he pleads guilty, court will ask if the accused understands is plea. Submission of affidavit during trial, even if assisted by counsel is not enough.

•

TREASON: breach of allegiance to the government, committed by a person who owes allegiance to it. Allegiance: obligation of fidelity and obedience. It is permanent or temporary depending on whether the person is a citizen or an alien. Evident premeditation, superior strength and treachery are circumstances inherent in treason, and are, therefore, not aggravating. Treason cannot be committed in times of peace, only in times of war – actual hostilities. But no need for declaration of war

• •

Not Treasonous: a. Acceptance of public office and discharge of official duties under the enemy does not constitute per se the felony of treason (exception: when it is policy determining)

b. Serving in a puppet government (ministerial functions) and in order to serve the
populace is NOT treasonous. But it is treason if: a) there is discretion involved; b) inflicts harm on Filipinos; c) it is disadvantageous to them. c. Purpose of offender: to deliver the Philippines to enemy country; if merely to change officials – not treason On Citizenship > Filipino citizens can commit treason outside the Philippines. But that of an alien must be committed in the Philippines. > Only Filipino citizens or permanent resident aliens can be held liable > ALIEN: with permanent resident status from the BID – it is neither the length of stay in the Philippines nor the marriage with a Filipino that matters. • • Actual hostilities may determine the date of the commencement of war No such thing as attempted treason; mere attempt consummates the crime GIVING AID OR COMFORT – material element, enhances forces of the enemy country.

•

> Acts which strengthen or tend to strengthen the enemy in the conduct of war against the traitor’s country or that which weaken and tend to weaken the power of the same. Example: Financing arms procurement of enemy country. But giving of shelter is not necessarily “giving aid and comfort.”

• •

Adherence and giving aid or comfort must concur together. ADHERENCE: when a citizen intellectually or emotionally favors the enemy and harbors convictions disloyal to his country’s policy. But membership in the police force during the occupation is NOT treason. Example: Giving information to, or commandeering foodstuffs for the enemy.

Sigma Rho ( ΣΡ ) reviewers

2

Elements and Notes in Criminal Law Book II by RENE CALLANTA
from the circumstances surrounding the act. * When this adherence or sympathies are converted into aid and comfort, only then they take material form. This material form is now what is made punishable. It is usually manifested by the offender in giving information, commandeering foodstuffs, serving as spy and supplying the enemy with war materials.

• Adherence may be proved by: (1) one witness; (2) from the nature of the act itself; (3)

•

Treason is a CONTINUING CRIME. Even after the war, offender can be prosecuted.

* Treason is a continuing offense. It can be committed by a single act or by a series of acts. It can be committed in one single time or at different times and only one criminal intent. In construing the provisions relating to the commission of several acts, the same must be done in pursuance or furtherance of the act of treason. * No matter how many acts of treason are committed by the offender, he will be liable for only one crime of treason.

•

If you convict a person for treason by reason of irresistible force or uncontrollable fear, you may use Art.12. No treason through negligence

* In the imposition of the penalty for the crime of treason, the court may disregard the presence of mitigating and aggravating circumstances. It may consider only the number, nature and gravity of the acts established during the trial. The imposition of the penalty rests largely on the exercise of judicial discretion. Defenses that may be availed of by the accused. 1. Duress or uncontrollable fear of immediate death; and 2. Lawful obedience to a de facto government.

•

When killings and other common crimes are charged as overt act of treason, they cannot be regarded as (1) separate crimes or (2) as complex with treason.

* In the act of levying war or giving aid or comfort to the enemy, murder, robbery, arson or falsification may be committed by the offender. BUT the offender does not commit the crime of treason complexed with common crimes because such crimes are inherent to treason, being an indispensable element of the same. Treason distinguished from Rebellion.

The manner in which both crimes are committed in the same. In treason however, the purpose of the offender is to deliver the government to the enemy country or to a foreign power. In rebellion , the purpose of the rebels is to substitute the government with their own form of government. No foreign power is involved.
Treason distinguished from Sedition. In treason , the offender repudiates his allegiance to the government by means of force or intimidation. He does not recognize the supreme authority of the State. He violates his allegiance by fighting the forces of the duly constituted authorities. In sedition , the offender disagrees with certain policies of the State and seeks to disturb public peace by raising a commotion or public uprising.

Article 115 CONSPIRACY TO COMMIT TREASON
• ELEMENTS: a. In time of war

Sigma Rho ( ΣΡ ) reviewers

3

Elements and Notes in Criminal Law Book II by RENE CALLANTA
b. 2 or more persons come to an agreement to 1. levy war against the government, or 2. adhere to the enemies and to give them aid or comfort, c. They decide to commit it

•

ELEMENTS OF PROPOSAL TO COMMIT TREASON
a. In time of war b. A person who has decided to levy war against the government, or to adhere to the enemies and to give them aid or comfort, proposes its execution to some other person/s.

• •

Mere agreement and decisions to commit treason is punishable Mere proposal even without acceptance is punishable too. If the other accepts, it is already conspiracy.

* While Treason as a crime should be established by the two-witness rule, the same is not observed when the crime committed conspiracy to commit treason or when it is only a proposal to commit treason.

Article 116 MISPRISION OF TREASON
• ELEMENTS: a. That the offender must be owing allegiance to the government, and not a foreigner b. That he has knowledge of any conspiracy (to commit treason) against the government

c. That he conceals or does not disclose and make known the same as soon as possible to the governor or fiscal of the province or the mayor or fiscal of the city in which he resides
* While in treason, even aliens can commit said crime because of the amendment to the article, no such amendment was made in misprision of treason. Misprision of treason is a crime that may be committed only by citizens of the Philippines.

•

Offender is punished as an accessory to the crime of treason

* Take note that the offender is a principal to the crime of misprision of treason, yet he is penalized only as an accessory. In the imposition of the penalty, the court is not bound by the provisions of Article 63 and 64, referring to indivisible penalties. In the presence of mitigating and aggravating circumstances, the offender is punished two degrees lower than the penalty for the crime of treason.
* The criminal liability arises if the treasonous activity was still at the conspiratorial stage

• •

This crime does not apply if the crime of treason is already committed Crime of omission

* This is a felony by omission although committed with dolo, not with culpa.

•
•

“To report within a reasonable time” – depends on time, place and circumstance – the RPC did not fix time. RPC states 4 individuals, what if you report to some other high-ranking government official? Ex. PNP Director? Judge Pimentel says any gov’t official of the DILG is OK.

* Whether the conspirators are parents or children, and the ones who learn the conspiracy is a parent or child, they are required to report the same. The reason is that although blood is thicker than water so to

Sigma Rho ( ΣΡ ) reviewers

4

which he had in his possession by reason of the public office holds
ELEMENTS: a. the offender is any private individual. Unlawful disclosing of information affecting national defense. when it comes to security of the state. and
Sigma Rho ( ΣΡ ) reviewers
5
. That the offender is a public officer b. blood relationship is always subservient to national security . Conspiracy to violate preceding sections. Unlawfully obtaining or permitting to be obtained information affecting national defense. Disloyal acts or words in times of peace. they are treated as principals. Here. Wiretapping is NOT espionage if the purpose is not something connected with the defense
•
•
Commonwealth Act No.
• ELEMENTS: a. data. without authority therefor. or losing information respecting the national defense with the intent or reason to believe that the information is to be used to the injury of the Philippines or the advantage of any foreign nation. fort.
Article 117 Espionage by entering. or naval or military establishments or reservation to obtain any information. 4. 1. Harboring or concealing violators of law.Elements and Notes in Criminal Law Book II by RENE CALLANTA
speak. the offender must be a public officer who has in possession the articles. or a public officer. That he has in his possession the articles. data or information by reason of the office he holds. the offender must have the intention to obtain information relative to the defense of the PHIL. transmitting. Disloyal acts or words in times of war.
•
ESPIONAGE: the offense of gathering. 616 – An Act to Punish Espionage and Other Offenses against National Security Acts punished 1. 5. It is not conditioned on citizenship. What is important is that the information related is connected with the defense system of the Philippines. That he has no authority therefore. 6. or information referred to in paragraph 1 of Article 117. That he discloses their contents to a representative of a foreign nation
•
Purpose: to gather data
* Under the second mode. by reason of the public office he holds c. It is sufficient that he entered the prohibited premises. 2. whether an alien or a citizen of the Philippines. b. warship. Not necessary that Philippines is at war with the country to which the information was revealed. 3. Article 20 does not apply here because the persons found liable for this crime are not considered accessories. he reveals or discloses the information which are confidential and are relevant to the defense of the Philippines. plans. plans. data or information referred to in par 1 of art 117. Taking advantage of his official position. photographs or other data of a confidential nature relative to the defense of the Philippines * Under the first mode of committing espionage. photographs or other data of a confidential nature relative to the defense of the Philippines. That his purpose is to obtain information. That the offender enters any of the places mentioned therein 2 3 2.
Espionage by disclosing to the representative of a foreign nation the contents of the articles.

as there is a need to bring the offender here before he can be made to suffer the consequences of the law. • That such acts provoke or give occasion for a war involving or liable to involve the Philippines or expose Filipino citizens to reprisals on their persons or property
Crime is committed in time of peace.Elements and Notes in Criminal Law Book II by RENE CALLANTA
7. like piracy and mutiny. That it is in time of war in which the Philippines is involved
Sigma Rho ( ΣΡ ) reviewers
6
. during a war between different countries in which the Philippines is not taking sides. The acts against national security may be committed abroad and still be punishable under our law. but it can not be tried under foreign law.
Article 120 CORRESPONDENCE WITH HOSTILE COUNTRY
ELEMENTS: a. X burns Chinese flag. That there is a regulation issued by competent authority for the purpose of enforcing neutrality c. Photographing vital military information
CRIMES AGAINST LAWS OF NATIONS
* In crimes against the law of nations. Crimes against national security can be tried only in the Philippines. the offenders can be prosecuted anywhere in the world because these crimes are considered as against humanity in general. that is already reprisal.
• •
EXAMPLE. it could be economic reprisals. So violation of neutrality can be committed through reckless imprudence. That there is war in which the Philippines is not involved b.
Article 118 INCITING TO WAR OR GIVING MOTIVES FOR REPRISALS
• ELEMENTS: a. That the offender performs unlawful or unauthorized acts b. intent is immaterial Inciting to war – offender is any person Reprisals is not limited to military action. • That the offender violates such regulation
Gov’t must have declared the neutrality of the Phil in a war between 2 other countries
* The regulation must be issued by a competent authority like the President of the Philippines or the Chief of Staff of the Armed Forces of the Philippines. If China bans the entry of Filipinos into China. • • It is neutrality of the Phil that is violated Congress has the right to declare neutrality
* The violations can be done either by means of dolo or by means of culpa. or denial of entry into their country.
Article 119 VIOLATION OF NEUTRALITY
ELEMENTS: a.

Elements and Notes in Criminal Law Book II by RENE CALLANTA
b. If none. offender intended to aid the enemy Hostile country exist only during hostilities or after the declaration of war Correspondence to enemy country – correspondence to officials of enemy country – even if related to you. d. That the correspondence is either – 1. or 3. no need for prohibition If ciphers were not used. or 2. carried on in ciphers or conventional signs. prohibited by the government. By seizing the whole or part of the cargo of said vehicles. notice or information might be useful to the enemy b. That the offender makes correspondence with an enemy country or territory occupied by enemy troops c. It is not correspondence with private individual in enemy country If ciphers were used. its equipment or personal belongings of its complement or passengers
Sigma Rho ( ΣΡ ) reviewers
7
. even if went to enemy country – no violation Alien resident may be guilty here. That the offender (Filipino or resident alien) must be owing allegiance to the government c. there is a need for prohibition In any case. • • • That the offender attempts to flee or go to enemy country That going to enemy country is prohibited by competent authority
Mere attempt consummates the crime There must be a prohibition. That there is a war in which the Philippines is involved b.
Article 122 PIRACY
• 2 Ways of Committing Piracy a. By attacking or seizing a vessel on the high seas or in the Philippine waters (PD 532) b. containing notice or information which might be useful to the enemy • 1 2 3 • Circumstances qualifying the offense: a. it must be correspondence with the enemy country Doesn’t matter if correspondence contains innocent matters – if prohibited. punishable
•
• • • • •
Article 121 FLIGHT TO ENEMY’S COUNTRY
• ELEMENTS a.

Apparently. for one to be called a pirate. the crime is robbery. in Philippine waters . shall be considered as piracy. irrespective of the value hereof. or acquires or receives property taken by such pirates. seize the whole or part of the cargo of said vessel.D. If in the Phil.
•
•
under the amended article. it is expressly provided in the same section that the offender shall be considered as an accomplice of the principal offenders and punished in accordance with the Revised Penal Code. strangers to the vessel. committed by any person. 532. Said section penalizes any person who knowingly and in any manner aids or protects pirates. under the Revised Penal Code. 7659 since there is nothing in the amendatory law is inconsistent with said section. Neither may it be considered repealed by Republic Act No. despite the amendment. equipment or personal belongings of its complement or passengers committed by any person including a passenger or member of the complement of said vessel shall be considered Piracy. the crime is not piracy but robbery in the high seas) 2. or in any manner derives any benefit therefrom. piracy is part of robbery and theft MUTINY Unlawful resistance to a superior officer. 532 . P. if committed by crew or passengers. 532 with respect to piracy in Philippine water has not been incorporated in the Revised Penal Code. piracy can only be committed by a person who is not a passenger nor member of the complement of the vessel irrespective of venue. by means of violence against or intimidation of persons or force upon things. not piracy. that in Section 4 of Presidential Decree No. That the offenders are not members of its complement or passengers of the vessel That the offenders – 1. Offenders are Attack from the inside. That a vessel is on the high seas/Philippine waters b. 532 may still apply where the offender is not stranger to the vessel since it provides: “Any attack upon or seize of any vessel. including a passenger or member of the complement of said vessel. • While the Article 122 limits the offenders to non-passengers or non-members of the crew. or who directly or indirectly abets the commission of piracy. waters still piracy
* However. or the raising of commotion and disturbances on board a ship against the authority of its commander
PIRACY Robbery or forcible degradation on the high seas. or taking away the whole or part thereof or its cargo. P.
Intent to gain is an element. such as giving them information about the movement of the police or other peace officers of the government. No.
Sigma Rho ( ΣΡ ) reviewers
8
.
* Note. Also. however. attack or seize that vessel or (hence. the offender must be a stranger to the vessel. the act of aiding pirates or abetting piracy is penalized as a crime distinct from piracy. So if a passenger or complement of the vessel commits acts of robbery in the high seas. or the taking away of the whole of part thereof or its cargo. c. there is still the crime of abetting piracy in Philippine waters under Presidential Decree No. its equipment or personal belongings of its complement or passengers
• • •
•
High seas: any waters on the sea coast which are without the boundaries of the low water mark although such waters may be in the jurisdictional limits of a foreign gov’t PIRACY IN HIGH SEAS – jurisdiction is with any court where offenders are found or arrested PIRACY IN INTERNAL WATERS – jurisdiction is only with Philippine courts For purpose of Anti-Fencing Law. 532 states that the attack upon or seizure of any vessel. The offenders shall be considered as pirates and punished as hereinafter provided. without lawful authority and done with animo lucrandi and in the spirit and intention of universal hostility. This provision of Presidential Decree No. No criminal intent Attack from outside.Elements and Notes in Criminal Law Book II by RENE CALLANTA
• Elements: a. equipment or the personal belongings of its complement or passengers.D.” After all.

or personal belongings of the crew or passengers.
Although in Article 123 merely refers to qualified piracy. but only theft. any taking in a vessel with force upon things or with violence or intimidation against person is employed will always be piracy. Whenever they have seized a vessel by boarding or firing upon the same b. (the above may result to qualified mutiny)
* Murder. cannot be committed on board a vessel. murder.
MUTINY is the unlawful resistance to a superior officer. its equipment. the crime of piracy cannot be committed.
Article 123 QUALIFIED PIRACY
• QUALIFYING CIRCUMSTANCES: a. homicide. Rodriguez. This means that even if the accused enters a plea of guilty. therefore.
ELEMENTS OF MUTINY 1) The vessel is on the high seas or Philippine waters. attack or seize the vessel. the mandatory penalty of death should be imposed. b. where rape. or rape. nor can they be complexed with piracy.
Note that the first circumstance which qualifies piracy does not apply to mutiny.Elements and Notes in Criminal Law Book II by RENE CALLANTA
* Considering that the essence of piracy is one of robbery . In other countries. the penalty of death will still be imposed because death is a single and indispensable penalty. or When the mutiny is accompanied by rape. or seize the whole or part of the cargo. If any of the circumstances enumerated under the law is proven or established. 6235 (The Anti Hi-Jacking Law)
Anti hi-jacking is another kind of piracy which is committed in an aircraft. Mutiny is qualified under the following circumstances: (1) (2) When the offenders abandoned the victims without means of saving themselves. or the raising of commotions and disturbances aboard a ship against the authority of its commander.
• •
Parricide/infanticide should be included (Judge Pimentel) Murder/rape/homicide/physical injuries must have been committed on the passengers or complement
* In piracy. there is also the crime of qualified mutiny. the mandatory penalty of death is imposable. Robbery. or passengers of the vessel. The presence of mitigating or aggravating circumstances will be ignored by the court. or physical injuries. Whenever the pirates have abandoned their victims without means of saving themselves
c. murder or homicide is committed. homicide. rape. But if the taking is without violence or intimidation on persons or force upon things.
Republic Act No. Whenever the crime is accompanied by murder. homicide. 3) Offenders either – a. physical injuries. It cannot co-exist with the crime of robbery. (People vs.
Sigma Rho ( ΣΡ ) reviewers
9
. 2) Offenders are either members of its complement. physical injuries are mere circumstances qualifying piracy and cannot be
punished as separate crimes. this crime is known as aircraft piracy. 135 SCRA 485) * The penalty for qualified piracy is reclusion perpetua to death.

The anti hi-jacking law is applicable in this case. Does the anti hi-jacking law apply? No. corrosive. the anti hi-jacking law will already govern. Destruction of property with the use of pyro-technique is destructive arson. any flammable. or transporting on board a cargo aircraft operating as a public utility in the Philippines. and loading. So if the doors are closed to bring the aircraft to the hangar. So even if any of the acts mentioned were committed while the exterior doors of the foreign aircraft were still open. The aircraft shall be deemed to be already in flight even if its engine has not yet been started. Note that under this law. under the law.Elements and Notes in Criminal Law Book II by RENE CALLANTA
Four situations governed by anti hi-jacking law: (1) (2) (3) (4) usurping or seizing control of an aircraft of Philippine registry while it is in flight. compelling the pilots thereof to change the course or destination of the aircraft. If at that time. But before they could do anything on the aircraft. This means that there are passengers that boarded. because they have to move out of that foreign country. The pilots of the Pan Am aircraft were accosted by some armed men and were told to proceed to the aircraft to fly it to a foreign destination. the law does not require that it be in flight before the anti hi-jacking law can apply.
Between numbers 1 and 2. the point of distinction is whether the aircraft is of Philippine registry or foreign registry. or poisonous substance. While the pilot and co-pilot are taking their snacks at the airport lounge. The correlative crime may be one of grave coercion or grave threat.
Sigma Rho ( ΣΡ ) reviewers
10
. This is because aircrafts of foreign registry are considered in transit while they are in foreign countries. if the aircraft is of foreign registry. that there is no hi-jacking in the attempted stage. they pulled out their firearms and gave instructions where to fly the aircraft. The law makes a distinction between aircraft of a foreign registry and of Philippine registry . If somebody is killed. Even if the problem does not say that all exterior doors are closed. explosive. the anti hi-jacking law will not apply and the crime is still punished under the Revised Penal Code. On the other hand. If the aircraft subject of the hi-jack is of Philippine registry. Otherwise. A Philippine Air Lines aircraft is bound for Davao. technically they are still in flight. simply usurping or seizing control is enough as long as the aircraft is within Philippine territory. It is a question now of whether the anti-hi-jacking law shall govern. which is hi-jacking. usurping or seizing control of an aircraft of foreign registry while within Philippine territory. Note that the aircraft is of Philippine registry. alert marshals arrested them. corrosive. Note. or poisonous substance if this was done not in accordance with the rules and regulations set and promulgated by the Air Transportation Office on this matter. The important thing is that before the anti hi-jacking law can apply. Explosives are by nature pyrotechniques. the aircraft must be in flight. The common bar question on this law usually involves number 1. carrying or loading on board an aircraft operating as a public utility passenger aircraft in the Philippines. The passengers have yet to board the aircraft. As soon as the pilots entered the cockpit. the requirement that it be in flight does not hold true when in comes to aircraft of foreign registry. other special laws will apply. Even if the aircraft is not yet about to fly. explosive. compelling the pilots thereof to land in any part of Philippine territory. an aircraft is considered in flight from the moment all exterior doors are closed following embarkation until such time when the same doors are again opened for disembarkation. any flammable.
Questions & Answers 1. however. If there are some explosives carried there. the aircraft is not considered as in flight. The armed men walked with the pilots and went on board the aircraft. Since the aircraft is of foreign registry. the law will not apply because the aircraft is not yet in flight. This is a special law where the attempted stage is not punishable. 2. some of the armed men were also there. whatever crimes committed shall be governed by the Revised Penal Code. the offenders are apprehended. shipping. it should be in flight at the time of the hi-jacking. Although they may have been in a foreign country. the crime is hi-jacking. If there is illegally possessed or carried firearm. the crime is homicide or murder. The pilots were followed by these men on their way to the aircraft. as the case may be. without the requirement that it be in flight. the crime is destructive arson. If not in flight. What crime was committed? The criminal intent definitely is to take control of the aircraft.

Instead. two of its passengers seated near the pilot surreptitiously entered the pilot cockpit. the doors were still open. corrosive.
Sigma Rho ( ΣΡ ) reviewers
11
. The crime committed was grave coercion or grave threat. however. Other than this situation. etc. the Revised Penal Code shall govern. The hi-jackers threatened to detonate a bomb in the course of the hi-jack. flammable. Carrying of any prohibited. a passenger or complement was shot and killed. 6235. the quantity in which they may be loaded at any time. technically. In both cases. 2.Elements and Notes in Criminal Law Book II by RENE CALLANTA
3. What crime or crimes were committed? Again. if the aircraft were of foreign registry. the anti hi-jacking law does not apply. In the course of the hi-jack. the offenders were subdued and the aircraft landed. The Board of Transportation provides the manner of packing of such kind of articles. it is still considered in transit or in flight. While the stewardess of a Philippine Air Lines plane bound for Cebu was waiting for the passenger manifest. the offender shall be prosecuted not only for violation of Republic Act No. The reason for the distinction is that as long as such aircraft has not returned to its home base. the crime is violation of the anti hi-jacking law. However. What crime was committed? The aircraft was not yet in flight. However. the prohibition is absolute . Private aircrafts are not subject to the anti hi-jacking law. Questions & Answers 1. the act would already be subject to the anti hijacking law because there is no requirement for foreign aircraft to be in flight before such law would apply. If the explosives were planted in the aircraft to blow up the aircraft. What crime or crimes were committed? The crime remains to be a violation of the anti hi-jacking law. as the case may be. in so far as transporting prohibited substances are concerned. the circumstance will qualify the penalty and that is not punishable as a separate crime for murder. 6235. Considering that the stewardess was still waiting for the passenger manifest. corrosive. any physical injury or damage to property which would result from the carrying or loading of the flammable. before the pilot could fly the aircraft towards the Middle East. However. explosive. or poisonous substance in an aircraft. but the penalty thereof shall be higher because a passenger or complement of the aircraft had been killed. The penalty is increased under the anti hi-jacking law. the distinction is whether the aircraft is a passenger aircraft or a cargo aircraft. or explosive substance is a crime under Republic Act No. the crime of physical injuries will be absorbed. At gunpoint. As to numbers 3 and 4 of Republic Act No. There will be two prosecutions here. The crime of homicide or murder is not committed. the anti hi-jacking law is not applicable. 6235 . Such acts would not constitute another crime. they directed the pilot to fly the aircraft to the Middle East. under Section 7. All other acts outside of the four are merely qualifying circumstances and would bring about higher penalty. Otherwise. If the aircraft is a passenger aircraft. The separate crime of grave threat is not committed. This is considered as a qualifying circumstance that shall serve to increase the penalty. the law is violated only when the transporting of the prohibited substance was not done in accordance with the rules and regulations prescribed by the Air Transportation Office in the matter of shipment of such things. but also for the crime of physical injuries or damage to property. under the Revised Penal Code. the law applies only to public utility aircraft in the Philippines. So the killing or explosion will only qualify the penalty to a higher one. But if the aircraft is only a cargo aircraft. depending upon whether or not any serious offense violence was inflicted upon the pilot. Hence.

But a private person acting alone cannot commit the crimes under Article 124 to 132 of this title. 8.
* Under this title. albeit illegally. Delaying release
Article 124 ARBITRARY DETENTION
• ELEMENTS: a. 127). But if the legal basis for the apprehension and detention does not exist. and 10. c. Interruption of religious worship (Art. Prohibition. But private persons may also be liable under this title as when a private person conspires with a public officer. 129). then the detention becomes arbitrary. 126). Violation of domicile (Art.
b. he may cause the arrest and detention of troublemakers or those who disturb the peace and order within his barangay. if the offender does not possess such authority. Searching domicile without witnesses (Art.
•
Legal grounds for the detention of any person: a. 9. By detaining a person without legal ground b. 132). except as to the last crime – offending the religious feelings under Article 133. the private person also becomes liable for the same crime. the crime committed by him is illegal detention.
•
Though the elements specify that the offender be a public officer or employee. the offenders are public officers. 128). 130). Delay in the delivery of detained persons to the proper judicial authorities c. 125). In the maintenance of such peace and order. interruption. 6. Delay in the delivery of detained persons to the proper judicial authorities (Art. 7. •
That he detains a person (actual restraint). That the offender is a public officer or employee (whose official duties include the authority to make an arrest and detain persons. So. Arbitrary detention (Art. What is required is that the principal offender must be a public officer. Expulsion (Art. This is because he is a person in authority vested with the jurisdiction to maintain peace and order within his barangay. Delaying release (Art. 131). if a private person conspires with a public officer.
CLASSES OF ARBITRARY DETENTION: a. 3. 2. which refers to any person. 5.
* Only those public officers whose official duties carry with it the authority to make an arrest and detain persons can be guilty of this crime.
DETENTION: when a person is placed in confinement or there is a restraint on his person. Thus. Search warrants maliciously obtained and abuse in the service of those legally obtained (Art. or becomes an accessory or accomplice. private individuals who conspire with public officers can also be liable. commission of a crime
Sigma Rho ( ΣΡ ) reviewers
12
. Offending the religious feelings (Art. 124). That the detention was without legal grounds (cannot be committed if with warrant). jurisdiction to maintain peace and order). and dissolution of peaceful meetings (Art. 4.Elements and Notes in Criminal Law Book II by RENE CALLANTA
TITLE TWO CRIMES AGAINST THE FUNDAMENTAL LAWS OF THE STATE
Crimes against the fundamental laws of the State 1. The public officers who may be held liable are only those acting under supposed exercise of official functions. 133).
* In a case decided by the Supreme Court a Barangay Chairman who unlawfully detains another was held to be guilty of the crime of arbitrary detention.

•
Distinction between arbitrary detention and illegal detention 1. • Continuing crime is different from a continuous crime Ramos v. has been committed in his presence b. or become an accomplice or accessory to the crime committed by the public officer. 2. is being.
* Arbitrary detention can be committed thru simple imprudence or negligence.
Sigma Rho ( ΣΡ ) reviewers
13
. unless the rebels renounce his affiliation. there is no Arbitrary Detention. he has not committed any crime or no reasonable ground of suspicion that he has committed a crime b. Officer must have probable cause to believe based on personal knowledge of facts and circumstances that the person probably committed the crime
• •
For escaped prisoner – no need for warrant Example: Y was killed by unknown assailant. Officers got a tip and arrested X. Why? Because once X made a confession. X voluntarily admitted to the officers that he did it although he was not asked. In arbitrary detention -The principal offender must be a public officer. then the rebels continue to engage in rebellion. But a public officer can commit the crime of illegal detention when he is acting in a private capacity or beyond the scope of his official duty. X was detained immediately. violent insanity or other ailment requiring compulsory confinement of the patient in a hospital c.Elements and Notes in Criminal Law Book II by RENE CALLANTA
b. or when he becomes an accomplice or accessory to the crime committed by a private person. In illegal detention -The principal offender is a private person. Detention for more than 15 days but not more than 6 months. Misa) Periods of Detention penalized: 1. • Without legal grounds: a. and The offender who is a public officer has a duty which carries with it the authority to detain a person. escaped prisoner * When the peace officers acted in good faith even if the three (3) grounds mentioned above are not obtaining. not suffering from violent insanity or any other ailment requiring compulsory confinement in a hospital • Grounds for warrantless arrest: a. 3. According to the SC. once you have committed rebellion and have not been punished or amnestied. Arrest can be made without a warrant because this is a continuing crime. and 4. Crime is about to be. the officers had a right to arrest him. Detention not exceeding three days. Detention for more than three days but not more than 15 days. Enrile: Rebels later on retire. there was NO arbitrary detention. According to the SC. (People vs. Detention for more than 6 months. Civilians cannot commit the crime of arbitrary detention except when they conspire with a public officer committing this crime. 2.

the main reason for detaining the offended party is to deny him of his liberty. correctional or afflictive penalty or their equivalent. or their equivalent * Article 125 covers situations wherein the person detained has been arrested without a warrant but his arrest is nonetheless lawful. the offender is a public officer possessed with authority to make arrests. as the offended party may still go to the place where he wants to go. within five days after learning that the case has been filed in court without preliminary investigation.
Article 125 DELAY IN THE DELIVERY OF DETAINED PERSONS
• ELEMENTS: a.
• •
Really means delay in filing necessary information or charging of person detained in court. 36 hours. If he does not want to waive this in writing. does not include as his function the power to arrest and detain a person. then the crime of either arbitrary or illegal detention is still committed. he would have to waive in writing his rights under Article 125 so that the arresting officer will not immediately file the case with the court that will exercise jurisdiction over the case. the arresting officer will have to comply with Article 125 and file the case immediately in court without preliminary investigation. If there is no actual restraint. 18 or 36 hours. Distinction between arbitrary detention and unlawful arrest (1) As to offender In arbitrary detention. That the offender is a public officer or employee b. 12 hours.
Sigma Rho ( ΣΡ ) reviewers
14
. the detention is legal since it is in the pursuance of a lawful arrest. May be waived if a preliminary investigation is asked for. the detention becomes arbitrary when the period thereof exceeds 12. 18 hours and 36 hours as the case may be. unless he conspires with a public officer committing arbitrary detention. the crime of arbitrary detention or illegal detention is not committed. if the victim is under guard in his movement such that there is still restraint of liberty. for crimes/offenses punishable by capital punishment or afflictive penalties. the public officer who made the arrest will no longer be liable for violation of Article 125. the arrested person. when the person arrested is arrested for a crime which gives him the right to preliminary investigation and he wants to avail his right to a preliminary investigation. or their equivalent or 3. That he has detained a person for some legal grounds c. However. In this case. if detained for crimes/offenses punishable by light penalties. may ask for preliminary investigation. it is necessary that there must be an actual restraint of liberty of the offended party. 2) to deliver the person to the proper authority.
* Under the Revised Rules of Court.
* At the beginning. (2) As to criminal intent In arbitrary detention. even if he is a public officer. There is either grave or light threat. In unlawful arrest. his subsequent detention is without legal grounds. That he fails to deliver such person to the proper judicial authority within: 1. * Whether the crime is arbitrary detention or illegal detention. the offender may be any person. for crimes/offenses punishable by correctional penalties. In unlawful arrest. and 3) to file the necessary charges in a way trying to incriminate him.Elements and Notes in Criminal Law Book II by RENE CALLANTA
The offender. as the case may be. It is a felony committed by omission because of the failure of the offender to deliver the detained person to the proper judicial authority within 12 hours. depending on whether the crime is punished by light. 18 hours. or their equivalent 2. In such case. * When a person is unlawfully arrested. even though there have been warnings. However. the purpose is 1) to accuse the offended party of a crime he did not commit.

That there is a judicial or executive order for the release of a prisoner or detention prisoner. or 3. The period fixed by law under Article 125 does not apply because the arrest was made by virtue of a warrant of arrest.
Delay in Delivery of Detained (125) Detention is legal in the beginning. Serious and less serious offenses – 7 to 10 days. or that there is a proceeding upon a petition for the liberation of such person c. Such waiver is not violative of the accused constitutional right. Chief of Police). or 2. but illegality starts from the expiration of the specified periods without the persons detained having been delivered to the proper judicial authority. for purposes of this article. it is necessary that initially. It does not involve the physical delivery of the prisoner before the judge (Sayo vs.)
* Delivery of detained person consists in making charge of filing a compliant against the prisoner with the proper judicial authority. What is length of waiver? Light offense – 5 days.
•
Arbitrary Detention (124) Detention is illegal from the beginning. not Article 125. the proceedings upon a petition for the release of such person
Sigma Rho ( ΣΡ ) reviewers
15
. the performance of such judicial or executive order for the release of the prisoner. If the arrest is made without a warrant. the detention of the arrested person must be lawful because the arrest is based on legal grounds. There is no time limit specified except that the return must be made within a reasonable time. officers usually ask accused to execute a waiver which should be under oath and with assistance of counsel. A police officer has no authority to arrest and detain a person on the basis merely of the complaint of the offended party. This is known as citizen’s arrest. What the complainant may do is to file a complaint with the court and ask for the issuance of a warrant of arrest. he’s considered as one. this constitutes an unlawful arrest. will apply.Elements and Notes in Criminal Law Book II by RENE CALLANTA
• Does not contemplate actual physical delivery but at least there must be a complaint filed. If the arrest is not based on legal grounds. the service of the notice of such order to the prisoner.
Article 126 DELAYING RELEASE
ELEMENTS: a. Article 125 contemplates a situation where the arrest was made without warrant but based on legal grounds. Article 269(unlawful arrest). crime is illegal detention
Before Article 125 may be applied. Neither does it affect the legality of the confinement under process issued by the court. Within what period should a police officer who has arrested a person under a warrant of arrest turn over the arrested person to the judicial authority? A.
•
•
If offender is a private person. To escape from this. That the offender is a public officer or employee b. (Judge Pimentel) Article does not apply when arrest is via a warrant of arrest
•
•
Q. the arrest is pure and simple arbitrary detention. That the offender without good reason delays: 1. prosecutors – though technically not a judicial authority. • • The filing of the information in court does not cure illegality of detention. Duty complied with upon the filing of the complaint with the judicial authority (courts. even if after investigation he becomes convinced that the accused is guilty of the offense charged.

the mayor of the City of Manila wanted to make the city free from prostitution. delaying the proceedings upon any petition for the liberation of such person
•
•
Wardens and jailers are the persons most likely to violate this provision Provision does not include legislation
Article 127 EXPULSION
ELEMENTS: a. Lukban. * In the case of Filipino citizens. That the offender is a public officer or employee b. aliens. destierro. because a Filipino cannot be deported. by expelling a person from the Philippines b.Elements and Notes in Criminal Law Book II by RENE CALLANTA
• Three acts are punishable: a. 2. That he expels any person from the Philippines. by compelling a person to change his residence
* The essence of this crime is coercion but the specific crime is “expulsion” when committed by a public officer. It was held that the crime committed was expulsion. Certain aliens were arrested and they were just put on the first aircraft which brought them to the country so that they may be out without due process of law. is refused re-entry – is considered forcing him to change his address here Threat to national security is not a ground to expel or change his address.
In Villavicencio v. can order a person to change his residence. If committed by a private person. only the President of the Republic has the power to deport aliens whose continued stay in the country constitutes a menace to the peace and safety of the community.
•
Does not include undesirable aliens. 39 Phil 778. This crime refers only to
• •
If X (Filipino) after he voluntarily left. only the court. delaying the service of notice of such order to said prisoner c. not expulsion. or when sent to prison
Questions & Answers
1. what crime is committed?
Grave coercion. He ordered certain prostitutes to be transferred to Davao. If a Filipino citizen is sent out of the country.
Sigma Rho ( ΣΡ ) reviewers
16
. or compels a person to change his residence c. • That the offender is not authorized to do so by law
2 acts punishable: a.
* In the Philippines. without observing due processes since they have not been charged with any crime at all. Was there a crime committed? Yes. Expulsion. delaying the performance of a judicial or executive order for the release of a prisoner b. by final judgment. the crime is grave coercion.

if violence or intimidation is used (Art 286). any subsequent change of attitude will not restore the privacy which was already lost. That he is not authorized by judicial order to enter the dwelling and/or to make a search therein for papers or other effects c.
• •
If the offender who enters the dwelling against the will of the owner thereof is a private individual. person enters dwelling w/o consent or against the will
Sigma Rho ( ΣΡ ) reviewers
17
. * The primary object of the law is to preserve the privacy of abode of the offended party. the entry must be against the will of the owner. there is implied prohibition. the crime of violation of domicile is not committed. Papers or effects not constituting evidence of a crime be not returned immediately
* In order to commit this crime. even if he knew that someone in that dwelling is having unlawful possession of opium
Under Rule 113(sec. Offense committed at nighttime b. 11) of the Revised Rules of Court. searching papers or other effects found therein without the previous consent of such owner 3. the crime committed is trespass to dwelling (Art 280) When a public officer searched a person “outside his dwelling” without a search warrant and such person is not legally arrested for an offense. If the door is locked. after giving notice of an arrest. or unjust vexation. entering any dwelling against the will of the owner thereof 2.Elements and Notes in Criminal Law Book II by RENE CALLANTA
Article 128 VIOLATION OF DOMICILE
ELEMENTS: a. as when the offender has been allowed by the owner to enter the dwelling together with other persons. That the offender is a public officer or employee b. then the prohibition is express. when a person to be arrested enters a premise and closes it thereafter. the crime committed by the public officer is grave coercion. refusing to leave the premises. If the entry is only without the consent of the owner. if there is no violence or intimidation (Art 287) A public officer without a search warrant cannot lawfully enter the dwelling against the will of the owner. He shall not be liable for violation of domicile. If the signs “Do not enter” and “Strangers keep out” are posted in front of the house or dwelling. When privacy is waived. can break into the premise. or even if it is open but these are barriers to indicate the manifest intention of the owner to bar strangers from entering. Hence. The prohibition may be expressed or implied. the public officer. if the privacy is already lost. trespass to dwelling or violation of domicile cannot be committed. That he commits any of the following acts: 1.
•
•
•
3 acts punishable: a. after having surreptitiously entered said dwelling and after having been required to leave the same
•
Aggravating Circumstance (medium and maximum of penalty imposed): a.

Outside of these. That he procures a search warrant That there is no just cause
•
In order that a search warrant may be issued. (1) (2) (3) Search made incidental to a valid arrest. crime may be unjust vexation. and. meaning there was express or implied prohibition from entering the same. person enters and searches for papers and effects
Public officer who enters with consent searches for paper and effects without the consent of the owner. he must have perjured himself or induced someone to commit perjury to convince the court.
* The true test of lack of just cause is whether the sworn statement filed in support of the application for search warrant has been done in such a manner that perjury could be charged and the affiant can be held liable for making such false statement.
c. Entry must be done surreptitiously. the search warrant is entitled to respect because of presumption of regularity. even if the occupant does not direct him to leave. he is liable for violation of domicile. When the article seized is within plain view of the officer making the seizure without making a search therefore. to be determined by a judge after examination under oath of the complainant and the witnesses he may produce.
Sigma Rho ( ΣΡ ) reviewers
18
. followed and left. therefore.
•
Although void. That the offender is a public officer or employee b.
* This means there was no probable cause determined in obtaining the search warrant. But if entering was done against the will of the occupant of the house. not refusal to abide by it. doctrine inapplicable. c.
b. without this.Elements and Notes in Criminal Law Book II by RENE CALLANTA
In the plain view doctrine . because for him to succeed in obtaining a search warrant without a probable cause.
•
“BEING AUTHORIZED BY LAW” – means with search warrant. person entered secretly and refuses to leave after being asked to
The act punished is not the entry but the refusal to leave. to save himself or do some things good for humanity
There are only three recognized instances when search without a warrant is considered valid. the crime of violation of domicile is already committed because it would fall in number 1. The oath required refers to the truth of the facts within the personal knowledge of the applicant and his witnesses.
Article 129 SEARCH WARRANTS MALICIOUSLY OBTAINED
ELEMENTS: a. and particularly describing the place to be searched and the persons or things to be seized. If the offender upon being directed to leave. Where the search was made on a moving vehicle or vessel such that the exigency of he situation prevents the searching officer from securing a search warrant. Even if he is welcome in the dwelling.
•
Papers and effects need not be part of a crime. search would be invalid and the objects seized would not be admissible in evidence. it must be based on probable cause in connection with one offense. public officer should be legally entitled to be in the place where the effects were found. The public officer may also be prosecuted for perjury. it does not mean he has permission to search. thus. If he entered the place illegally and he saw the effects. One remedy is a motion to quash the search warrant. there is no crime of violation of domicile. the seizure of any evidence done is also valid .

Plain view doctrine is inapplicable since it presupposes that the officer was legally entitled to be in the place where the effects where found. That he exceeds his authority or uses unnecessary severity in executing the same • Search warrant is valid for 10 days from its date Search warrant is an order in writing issued in the name of the People. That he has legally procured a search warrant c. Eventually. or any member of his family. Responsible members of the community (can’t be influenced by the searching party)
Sigma Rho ( ΣΡ ) reviewers
19
. all details must be with particularity
•
• •
The officer exceeded his authority under the warrant – To illustrate. Example. plain view doctrine does not apply. papers or other belongings of any person
d. Members of the family of sufficient age and discretion c. Abuse examples: a. Tank was used to ram gate prior to announcement that a search will be made
The search warrant is not a license to commit destruction. Persons who were not respondents were searched
Article 130 SEARCHING DOMICILE WITHOUT WITNESSES • ELEMENTS :
a. The gun did not belong to X and the witness had no personal knowledge that there is a gun in that place. the person with the same name was found but in a different address. The Supreme Court acquitted him because the public officers are required to follow the search warrant to the letter. The occupant resisted but the public officer insisted on the search. Since the entry was illegal. b. Drugs were found and seized and occupant was prosecuted and convicted by the trial court. The PNP Narcotics Group obtained a search warrant but the name of person in the search warrant did not tally with the address stated. commanding him to search for personal property described therein and bring it before the court No just cause – warrant is unjustified Search – limited to what is described in the warrant. That the owner. or two witnesses residing in the same locality are not present • Order of those who must witness the search: a.
•
Malicious warrant. X was a respondent of a search warrant for illegal possession of firearms. signed by the judge and directed to a public officer. That the offender is a public officer or employee That he is armed with a search warrant legally procured That he searches the domicile.
•
c.Elements and Notes in Criminal Law Book II by RENE CALLANTA ABUSE IN THE SERVICE OF WARRANT OR EXCEEDING AUTHORITY OR USING UNNECESSARY SEVERITY IN EXECUTING A SEARCH WARRANT LEGALLY PROCURED
ELEMENTS: a. X owner was handcuffed while search was going-on. Homeowner b. b. c. let us say that there was a pusher in a condo unit. A return was made. They have no discretion on the matter. That the offender is a public officer or employee b.

store or building. dissolving or interrupting that meeting
If in the course of the assembly the participants commit illegal acts like oral defamation or inciting to sedition. not punishable under this article The person talking on a prohibited subject at a public meeting contrary to agreement that no speaker should touch on politics may be stopped
Sigma Rho ( ΣΡ ) reviewers
20
. to enter. 2.Elements and Notes in Criminal Law Book II by RENE CALLANTA •
Validity of the search warrant can be questioned only in 2 courts: 1) where issued or 2) where the case is pending.
* Article 130 has no application to search and seizure made on moving vehicles because the application of this law is limited to dwelling and personal properties such as papers and effects found therein. He performs any of the ff. or any person on board. package. it’s unjust vexation Interrupting and dissolving a meeting of the municipal council by a public officer is a crime against the legislative body. warehouse. AND DISSOLUTION OF PEACEFUL MEETINGS
• ELEMENTS: a. or
dissolving the same (e. • prohibiting or hindering any person from addressing. such defeats the exercise of the right to peaceably assemble. INTERRUPTION. Clear and present danger rule – applied in times of peace. The permit given is not a license to commit a crime. the crime is disturbance of public order (Art 153) Meeting must be peaceful and there is no legal ground for prohibiting. * There are searches and seizures which are authorized by law and which can be done without the attendance of witnesses. Latter is preferred for objective determination. acts:
1.
•
•
Meeting is subject to regulation
* If the permit is denied arbitrarily. Stricter rule. in the peaceful meeting. without legal ground the holding of a peaceful meeting. Article 131 is violated. otherwise. or to stop and search and examine any vehicle. hindering any person from joining any lawful association or from attending any of its meetings. pass through or search any land. prohibiting or interrupting.g. denial of permit in arbitrary manner). Article 131 is violated.
Article 131 PROHIBITION. Offender is a public officer or employee b. not being used as a dwelling house. and to inspect. box or envelope. beast or person suspected of holding or conveying any dutiable or prohibited article introduced into the Philippines contrary to law.
•
•
If the offender is a private individual. enclosure. and any trunk. search and examine any vessel or aircraft. 2203. a public officer or law enforcer can stop or dissolve the meeting. For instance. If the officer would not give the permit unless the meeting is held in a particular place which he dictates. either alone or together with others.
• • •
Offender must be a stranger. not a participant. the Tariff and Customs Code authorizes persons with police authority under Sec. any petition to the authorities for the correction of abuses or redress of grievances
Two criteria to determine whether Article 131 would be violated: (1) (2) Dangerous tendency rule – applicable in times of national unrest such as to prevent coup d’etat.

and tumults and other disturbances. he’s not. If the public officer is a participant of the assembly and he prohibits. boxed a priest while the priest was giving homily and while the latter was maligning a relative of X. public building or even a private place where a public function is being held. under Article 153 (1) As to the participation of the public officer In Article 131. a private person. a manifestation of religion. But if police stops a meeting in a private place because there’s no permit.
•
Distinctions between prohibition. without any legal ground. it’s a religious service Religious Worship: people in the act of performing religious rites for a religious ceremony. That the officer is a public officer or employee b. When priest is solemnizing marriage. But if done in a private home.
•
•
•
Article 133 OFFENDING RELIGIOUS FEELINGS
• ELEMENTS:
Sigma Rho ( ΣΡ ) reviewers
21
. or dissolves the same. interruption. he prohibits. Ex. the public officer is not a participant. That religious ceremonies or manifestations of any religion are about to take place or are going on c. the offender must be a public officer and.
Article 132 INTERRUPTION OF RELIGIOUS WORSHIP
• ELEMENTS: a. (2) As to the essence of the crime In Article 131. Article 153 is violated if the same is conducted in a public place. Is X liable? X may be liable under Art 133 because X is a private person. Example: Ordinance requires permits for meetings in public places. marriage X. the public officer is a third party. That the offender prevents or disturbs the same
• •
Circumstance qualifying the offense: if committed with violence or threats Reading of Bible and then attacking certain churches in a public plaza is not a ceremony or manifestation of religion. As far as the gathering is concerned. although in other cases. The essence of the crime is that of creating a serious disturbance of any sort in a public office. he is a person in authority. Mass. but only a meeting of a religious sect. officer is liable for stopping the meeting. In Article 153.Elements and Notes in Criminal Law Book II by RENE CALLANTA
• • But stopping the speaker who was attacking certain churches in public meeting is a violation of this article Prohibition must be without lawful cause or without lawful authority Those holding peaceful meetings must comply with local ordinances. baptism. or dissolves a peaceful meeting or assembly to prevent the offended party from exercising his freedom of speech and that of the assembly to petition a grievance against the government. or dissolution of peaceful meetings under Article 131. interrupts. interrupts. the offender need not be a public officer.

as mocking or scoffing or attempting to damage an object of religious veneration There must be deliberate intent to hurt the feelings of the faithful. in a place devoted to religious worship. Interruption and Dissolution of Peaceful Meeting (131) Interruption of Religious Worship (132)
Nature of Crime Who are Liable If Element Missing Crime against the Public officers. Processions and special prayers for burying dead persons but NOT prayer rallies Acts must be directed against religious practice or dogma or ritual for the purpose of ridicule. If not tumults = alarms public order private persons. 203). the same must be viewed or judged from the standpoint of the offended religion and not from the point of view of the offender (People vs. or (for this element. That the acts must be notoriously offensive to the feelings of the faithful (deliberate intent to
hurt the feelings) c.Elements and Notes in Criminal Law Book II by RENE CALLANTA
a. only the place is material) 2.
CRIME Prohibition. Baes. and scandal outsiders If meeting illegal at onset = inciting to sedition or rebellion
Offending the Religious Feeling (133)
Sigma Rho ( ΣΡ ) reviewers
22
. no need of religious
ceremony. 68 Phil. That the acts complained of were performed –
1. If not by public officer = fundamental law of Outsiders tumults the state Crime against the Public officers. The offender is any person • d. If by insider = unjust fundamental law of Outsiders vexation the state If not religious = tumult or alarms If not notoriously offensive = unjust vexation Crime against Public officers. there is no need for an ongoing religious ceremony Example of religious ceremony (acts performed outside the church). during the celebration of any religious ceremony
b. There is a deliberate intent to hurt the feelings of the faithful. mere arrogance or rudeness is not enough
•
• •
* In determining whether an act is offensive to the feelings of the faithful. directed against religious tenet If in a place devoted to religious purpose.

155). 8. Illegal associations (Art. Inciting to rebellion (Art. or
Sigma Rho ( ΣΡ ) reviewers
23
. 23. Rebellion or insurrection (Art. 149). Unlawful use of means of publication and unlawful utterances (Art. 141). 15. 3. 160). 14. 12. 150). 148). 13. 1. 154). or 6 7 ii. Sedition (Art. 11. Alarms and scandals (Art. taking arms against the government (force/violence)
b. 137).a Coup d’ etat (Art. 9. Illegal assemblies (Art. Indirect assaults (Art. 151). Direct assaults (Art. 153). Disobedience to summons issued by Congress. 158). 138). 4. 22. Conspiracy and proposal to commit rebellion (Art. Commission of another crime during service of penalty imposed for another previous offense (Art..Elements and Notes in Criminal Law Book II by RENE CALLANTA
TITLE THREE CRIMES AGAINST PUBLIC ORDER
Crimes against public order 1. Resistance and disobedience to a person in authority or the agents of such person (Art. Violation of parliamentary immunity (Art. 144). 134). 7. That the purpose of the uprising or movement is either 1. public uprising and
2. Tumults and other disturbances of public order (Art. Violation of conditional pardon (Art. That there be – 1. Acts tending to prevent the meeting of Congress and similar bodies (Art. 159). etc. 5. 134-A) 2. the territory of the Philippines or any part thereof. and 24. 142). etc. 17. any body of land. 16. 139). 21. 145). its committees. Conspiracy to commit sedition (Art. its committees. Evasion of service of sentence (Art. Disloyalty to public officers or employees (Art. to remove from the allegiance to said government or its laws – 4 5 i. 157). (Art. 146). naval or other armed forces. 156). Delivering prisoners from jails (Art. 136). 147). 6. Inciting to sedition (Art. 20. Evasion on occasion of disorders (Art. Disturbance of proceedings of Congress or similar bodies (Art. 143). 10. 19. by the constitutional commissions.
Article 134 REBELLION OR INSURRECTION
• ELEMENTS: a. 18.

of any of their powers or prerogatives • Persons liable for rebellion a.
• •
REBELLION used where the object of the movement is completely to overthrow and supersede the existing government INSURRECTION refers to a movement which seeks merely to effect some change of minor importance to prevent the exercise of gov’t authority w/ respect to particular matters or subjects The phrase “to remove allegiance from the government’ is used to emphasize that the object of the uprising could be limited to certain areas. purpose is always political
* The crime of rebellion is essentially a political crime. Lastly. or b. while holding any public office or employment. It aims to overthrow the duly constituted government. maintains. what is known to the ordinary citizen as a symbol of Government would be the barangay. to exact obedience of laws and regulations duly enacted and promulgated by the duly constituted authorities. robbery and other heinous crimes in what we call rebellion. not necessary to convict the accused who is in conspiracy w/ others actually taking arms against the gov’t Purpose of the uprising must be shown but it is not necessary that it be accomplished
Sigma Rho ( ΣΡ ) reviewers
24
. 4. kidnapping. the crime can only be committed through force and violence. duress or intimidation. represented by its officials. civil obedience and civil service. it is committed by several persons for the purpose of overthrowing the duly constituted or organized government. promotes 2. • • Actual clash of arms w/ the forces of the gov’t. assassination or the commission of common crimes like murder. His method of placing himself in authority with the use of violence. arson. wholly or partially. It does not require the participation of any member of the military or national police organization or public officers and generally carried out by civilians. In the Philippines. It also includes the efforts of the rebel to deprive the President of the Philippines of the exercise of his power to enforce the law. Any person who. the local government represented by the provincial and municipal officials. and the national government represented by the President.
•
Success is immaterial.
•
* Allegiance is a generic term which includes loyalty. or 3. exacting contributions or diverting public funds from the lawful purpose for which they have been appropriated (Note: “diverting public funds” is malversation absorbed in rebellion).
* The crime of rebellion cannot be committed by a single individual.Elements and Notes in Criminal Law Book II by RENE CALLANTA
2 To deprive the chief executive or congress. The intention of the rebel is to substitute himself in place of those who are in power. heads a rebellion or insurrection. like isolating a barangay or municipality or a province in its loyalty to the duly constituted government or the national government. does not speak only of allegiance or loss of territory. It requires a multitude of people. engaging in war against the forces of the government 2. Any person merely participating or executing the command of others in rebellion
* The essence of this crime is a public uprising with the taking up of arms. the Chief Justice and the Senate President and the Speaker of the House of Representatives. destroying property or committing serious violence 3.
* The law on rebellion however. Invariably. Any person who: 1. takes part therein by: 1.

it was because Article 135 then punished said acts as components of the crime of rebellion that precludes the application of Article 48 of the Revised Penal Code thereto. the changing of dollars into pesos for a top level communist. If there is no public uprising.
•
* When any of the objectives of rebellion is pursued but there is no public uprising in the legal sense . with public uprising. said acts constitute only one crime and that is rebellion. take part therein” by any of these acts: engaging in war against the forces of Government. for it can only interpret the law as it stands at any given time. such as killing and destruction of property. so that it cannot be conveniently utilized as the umbrella for every sort of illegal activity undertaken in its name. Hernandez that common crimes committed in furtherance of rebellion are absorbed by the crime of rebellion. • Not necessary that there is killing. Salazar because the text of Article 135 has remained the same as it was when the Supreme Court resolved the same issue in the People v. The acts of the accused who is not a member of the Hukbalahap organization of sending cigarettes and food supplies to a Huk leader. there is no legal basis for such rule now. The Hernandez doctrine was reaffirmed in Enrile v. the crime is of direct assault. which became effective on October 1990. either to raise the penalty therefore or to clearly define and delimit the other offenses to be considered absorbed thereby.”
Sigma Rho ( ΣΡ ) reviewers
25
. (Carino vs. Salazar. In view of said reaffirmation. therefore. The same acts constitute distinct crimes when committed on a different occasion and not in furtherance of rebellion. the crime is direct assault of the first form. destroying property. Prior to its amendment by Republic Act No. that rebellion may not be complexed with common crimes which are committed in furtherance thereof because they are absorbed in rebellion. committing serious violence.
> Common crimes perpetrated in furtherance of a political offense are divested of their character as “common” offenses and assume the political complexion of the main crime which they are mere ingredients. and consequently. are not to be treated as distinct crimes. exacting contributions. The court has no power to effect such change. 7 SCRA 900). Hernandez.
•
Rebellion cannot be complexed with any other crime. and what is needed lies beyond interpretation. 99 Phil 515. ORTEGA OPINION:
Rebellion can now be complexed with common crimes. Hopefully. direct assault cannot be committed. mere threat of removing Phil is sufficient
* Rebellion may be committed even without a single shot being fired. et al. But if there is rebellion. in Enrile v.. Since a higher penalty is prescribed for the crime of rebellion when any of the specified acts are committed in furtherance thereof. Congress will perceive the need for promptly seizing the initiative in this matter. 186 SCRA 217. Article 135 punished those “who while holding any public office or employment. reiterated and affirmed the rule laid down in People v. do not constitute Rebellion. cannot be punished separately from the principal offense. Merely sympathizing is not participation. or complexed with the same. was dictated by the provision of Article 135 of the Revised Penal Code prior to its amendment by the Republic Act No. diverting funds for the lawful purpose for which they have been appropriated. 6968 (An Act Punishing the Crime of Coup D’etat). The statement in People v. In short. This thinking is no longer correct. No encounter needed. some believe that it has been a settled doctrine that rebellion cannot be complexed with common crimes. the Supreme Court. which is purely within its province. Hernandez. there must be ACTUAL participation
* There must be a public apprising and taking up of arms for the specified purpose or purposes mentioned in Article 134. and the helping of Huks in opening accounts with the bank of which he was an official.Elements and Notes in Criminal Law Book II by RENE CALLANTA
• A change of government w/o external participation RISING PUBLICLY and TAKING ARMS AGAINST GOVERNMENT – actual participation. 6968. committed on the occasion and in furtherance thereof. Not long ago.
•
Mere giving of aid or comfort is not criminal in the case of rebellion. In the eyes of the law then. People. Mere public uprising with arms enough. So the Supreme Court invited attention to this fact and thus stated: “There is a an apparent need to restructure the law on rebellion. said acts are punished as components of rebellion and.

has been removed. even if not in furtherance of rebellion cannot be complexed If killing. spoke for them c. before Article 135 was amended. it is a continuing crime such along with the crime of conspiracy or proposal to commit such A private crime may be committed during rebellion. good faith and absence of criminal intent are not valid defenses. engaging in war against the forces of government. The legal impediment to the application of Article 48 to rebellion has been removed. the purpose may be political or social. deleted from the provision of Article 135 that portion referring to those – “…who. The purpose in sedition is to go against established government. exacting contributions or diverting public funds from the lawful purpose for which they have been appropriated …” Hence. robbing were done for private purposes or for profit. possessions of firearms.
* The offense of illegal possession of firearm is a malum prohibitum. or rebellion with arson as the case may be. even though committed by rebels in furtherance of rebellion. The legal obstacle for the application of Article 48. Fernando) Person deemed leader of rebellion in case he is unknown: Any person who in fact: a. In sedition. thus. without any political motivation. like serious acts of violence. it is sufficient that the public uprising be tumultuous. it did not only provide for the crime of coup d’etat in the Revised Penal Code but moreover. Salazar. illegal possession of firearms in furtherance of rebellion is distinct from the crime of rebellion. the purpose is always political.
•
However. there must be taking up or arms against the government. Rape. Example: the uprising of squatters against Forbes park residents. In amending Article135. common crimes involving killings. overt acts which used to be punished as components of the crime of rebellion have been severed therefrom by Republic Act No. 6968.Elements and Notes in Criminal Law Book II by RENE CALLANTA
Obviously. illegal association are absorbed. This implies that all acts of war or hostilities like serious violence and destruction of property committed on occasion and in pursuance of rebellion are component crimes of rebellion which is why Article 48 on complex crimes is inapplicable. * In sedition. a higher penalty is imposed when the offender engages in war against the government. To reiterate. the acts which used to be component crimes of rebellion. destroying property or committing serious violence. After the amendment. signed receipts and other documents issued in their name d. directed the others b. Ortega says legislators want to punish these common crimes independently of rebellion. have been deleted. Examples: killing. in enacting Republic Act No.
Article 134-A COUP D’ ETAT Sigma Rho ( ΣΡ ) reviewers
26
. 6968. "War" connotes anything which may be carried out in pursuance of war. in which case. therefore. performed similar acts on behalf of the rebels
•
•
•
Distinctions between rebellion and sedition (1) As to nature In rebellion. Congress took notice of this pronouncement and. Ortega cites no case overturning Enrile v. while holding any public office or employment takes part therein [rebellion or insurrection]. or rebellion with robbery. the crime would be separately be punished and would not be embraced by rebellion (People v.
•
Furthermore. These are now distinct crimes. not to overthrow it. and/or destructions of property. shall bring about complex crimes of rebellion with murder/homicide. (2) As to purpose In rebellion.

it may be carried out not only by force or violence but also through stealth.
How do you distinguish between coup d’etat and rebellion? Rebellion is committed by any person whether a private individual or a public officer whereas in coup d’etat.Elements and Notes in Criminal Law Book II by RENE CALLANTA
• ELEMENTS: a. Purpose of seizing or diminishing state power
* The essence of the crime is a swift attack upon the facilities of the Philippine government. whether wholly or partially. communication networks or public utilities 4. Treason (114) Rebellion (134) Coup d’etat Sedition (139) (134-A)
Sigma Rho ( ΣΡ ) reviewers
27
. with or without civilian support or participation
e. military camps and installations. threat or strategy. Committed by any person or persons belonging to the military or police or holding any public office or employment. other facilities needed for the exercise and continued possession of power
d. Accompanied by violence. In both instances. intimidation. the offender is a member of the military or police force or holding a public office or employment. With or without civilian support or participation f. any military camp or installation 3. the object is to alienate the allegiance of a people in a territory. strategy or stealth c. public utilities and facilities essential to the continued possession of governmental powers. the offenders intend to substitute themselves in place of those who are in power. Finally. Singly or simultaneously carried out anywhere in the Philippines d. the object or purpose is to seize or diminish state power. in coup d’etat. Swift attack b. threat. from the duly constituted government. duly constituted authorities 2. Directed against: 1. It requires as principal offender a member of the AFP or of the PNP organization or a public officer with or without civilian support. communication networks.
•
The objective may not be to overthrow the government but only to destabilize or paralyze the government through the seizure of facilities and utilities essential to the continued possession and exercise of governmental powers.
In rebellion. It may be committed singly or collectively and does not require a multitude of people.

even if conspiracy as a means to commit the crime is established. supports. In Government Service Not in Government Service Anyone who leads. state power. directs. which may result in homicide. Any person who: 1. takes part therein 1. c OR t adherence and s giving aid or comfort to enemies Purpose Deliver the gov’t of to enemy during objectiv war e Crime against Crime Public Order against Public Order Crime against Public Order
Public uprising See article. It is not limited to hostilities against the armed force. abets. • • Serious violence is that inflicted upon civilians. destroying property or committing serious violence 3. Any person merely participating or executing the command of other in a rebellion * When conspiracy is present in the commission of the crime. Maintains 3. to undertake a coup. In committing rebellion and coup d’etat. Diverting public funds is malversation absorbed in rebellion
NOTES: > Public officer must take active part because mere silence or omission not punishable in rebellion > It is not a defense in rebellion that the accused never took the oath of allegiance to.Elements and Notes in Criminal Law Book II by RENE CALLANTA
Nature Crime against o National Security f C r i m e Overt levying war A against the gov’t.
Article 135 PENALTIES
• Who are liable? a. finances. the principal of criminal liability under Article 17 of the Revised Penal Code is not followed. Any person who. Promotes 2. exacting contributions or diverting public funds from the lawful purpose for which they have been appropriated c. AND Taking up arms against the gov’t
Rising publicly or tumultuously (caused by more than 3 armed men or provided with means of violence)
See article. while holding any public office or employment. aids in a coup.
Seizing or See enumeration in diminishing article. the act of one is the act of all. heads a rebellion or insurrection b. or that they never recognized the government > Rebellion cannot be complexed with murder and other common crimes committed in pursuance of the movement to overthrow the government
Sigma Rho ( ΣΡ ) reviewers
28
. commands others Anyone who participates or in an manner. engaging in war against the forces of the gov’t 2.

Failing to resist rebellion by all the means in their power b. soliciting membership in. would be separately punished and would not be absorbed in the rebellion. REBELLION OR INSURRECTION (136) •
ELEMENTS: a. without any political motivation. robbing etc for private persons or for profit. For any of the purposes of rebellion They decide to commit it
PROPOSAL TO COMMIT COUP D’ ETAT. For any of the purposes of rebellion c. Proposes its execution to some other person/s • • Organizing a group of soldiers. If there are no means. Accepting appointment to office under rebels • • • • • Presupposes existence of rebellion Must not be in conspiracy with rebels or coup plotters If there are means to prevent the rebellion but did not resist it. Ramos).
Article 136 CONSPIRACY TO COMMIT COUP D’ ETAT. conspiracy or proposal to commit the crimes of rebellion or subversion and crimes or offenses committed in furtherance thereof constitute direct assaults against the State and are in the nature of continuing crimes ( Umil vs. c. > Killing.Elements and Notes in Criminal Law Book II by RENE CALLANTA
* Subversion. 2 more persons come to an agreement to rise publicly and take arms against the government b. not covered by this The collaborator must not have tried to impose the wishes of the rebels on the people. no fault If position is accepted in order to protect the people. REBELLION OR INSURRECTION
• ELEMENTS: a. Continuing to discharge the duties of their offices under the control of rebels c. then there’s disloyalty.
• •
Article 137 DISLOYALTY OF PUBLIC OFFICERS AND EMPLOYEES
• ACTS PUNISHED: a.
Sigma Rho ( ΣΡ ) reviewers
29
. then it is already taking part in it. and soliciting funds for the organization show conspiracy to overthrow the gov’t The mere fact of giving and rendering speeches favoring Communism would not make the accused guilty of conspiracy if there’s no evidence that the hearers then and there agreed to rise up in arms against the gov’t Conspiracy must be immediately prior to rebellion If it is during the rebellion. just like the crimes of rebellion. A person who has decided to rise publicly and take arms the government b.

Tumultuously (vis-à-vis rebellion where there must be a taking of arms)
b. emblems. dereliction of duty and violations of the anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act. That he incites others to the execution of any of the acts of rebellion
c. That the offenders employ any of those means to attain any of the following objects: 1. to inflict any act or hate or revenge upon the person or property of any public officer or employee
Sigma Rho ( ΣΡ ) reviewers
30
. maintains or heads a rebellion and who act at the same time incites or influences others to join him in his war efforts against the duly constituted government cannot be held criminally liable for the crime of inciting to rebellion because. aside from being disloyal. Proposal to Commit Rebellion (136) Inciting to Rebellion (138) The person who proposes has decided to Not required that the offender commit rebellion. * If the public officer or employee. or any provincial or municipal government. That they employ force. bribery. writings. banners or other representations tending to the same end • • Intentionally calculated to seduce others to rebellion There must be uprising to take up arms and rise publicly for the purposes indicated in Art 134
* One who promotes. That the inciting is done by means of speeches. to prevent the national government.Elements and Notes in Criminal Law Book II by RENE CALLANTA
* Disloyalty as a crime is not limited to rebellion alone but should now include the crime of coup d’etat. Rebellion is essentially a crime committed by private individuals while coup d’etat is a crime that should be classified as a crime committed by public officers like malversation. proclamations. or prevent the execution of any administrative order 3. to prevent the promulgation or execution of any law or the holding of any popular election 2. That the offender does not take arms or is not in open hostility against the government b. decided to commit rebellion. The person who proposes the execution The inciting is done publicly. the act of inciting to commit a rebellion is inherent to the graver crime of rebellion. or other means outside of legal methods c. That the offenders rise –
1. or any public thereof from freely exercising its or his functions. intimidation. as the principal to the crime of rebellion.
Article 138 INCITING TO REBELLION OR INSURRECTION
• ELEMENTS: a. he will no longer be charged for the simple crime of disloyalty but he shall be proceeded against for the grave offense of rebellion or coup d’etat. Publicly (if no public uprising = tumult and other disturbance of public order) 2. does or commits acts constituting the crime of rebellion or coup d’etat.
has
Article 139 SEDITION
• ELEMENTS: a. of the crime uses secret means.

For sedition – sufficient that uprising is tumultuous. Soldier) Public uprising and the object of sedition must concur Q: Are common crimes absorbed in sedition?
•
•
•
In P v. other persons participating in the sedition * The objective of the law in criminalizing sedition is to put a limit to the freedom of expression or the right of the people to assemble and petition the government for redress of grievance. and b. leader of the sedition. as in the meantime. • Preventing public officers from freely exercising their functions In sedition – offender may be a private or public person (Ex. the participants have encroached or stayed in the domain or realm of criminal law. the mantle of protection guaranteed under the Constitution to express their dissent peacefully. shall cease to exist. But when the protest in manifested in the form of rallies where the participants. SC held that NO. In rebellion – always political “TUMULTUOUS” is a situation wherein the disturbance or confusion is caused by at least four persons. resort to force or violence. The two elements must concur. This is like the so-called civil disobedience except that the means employed. even private persons may be offended parties) 5. There is no requirement that the offenders should be armed. • • • Preventing election through legal means – NOT sedition But when sugar farmers demonstrated and destroyed the properties of sugar barons – sedition Persons liable for sedition: a. or the national government of all its property or any part thereof
• • •
Sedition: raising of commotion or disturbances in the State. in order to attain their objective of overcoming the will of the government.
•
Difference from rebellion – object or purpose of the uprising. Notice from the purpose of the crime of sedition that the offenders rise publicly and create commotion and disturbance by way of protest to express their dissent and obedience to the government or to the authorities concerned.
Article 141.
The crime of sedition does not contemplate the taking up of arms against the government because the purpose of this crime is not the overthrow of the government. The crime of sedition is committed by rising publicly and tumultuously. Its ultimate object is a violation of the public peace or at least such measures that evidently engenders it. Conspiracy to Commit Sedition Sigma Rho ( ΣΡ ) reviewers
31
.Elements and Notes in Criminal Law Book II by RENE CALLANTA 4. for any political or social end. any act of hate or revenge against private persons
or any social class (hence. In rebellion – there must be taking up of arms against the government. • The demonstrations conducted or held by the citizenry to protest certain policies of the government is not a crime. to commit for any political or social end. Sedition – purpose may be either political or social. which is violence. Crimes committed in that case were independent of each other. is illegal. to despoil. Umali. municipality or province. any person.

the safety and order of the government
* Only non-participant in sedition may be liable. there must be an agreement and a decision to rise publicly and tumultuously to attain any of the objects of sedition. cartoons. Inciting others to the accomplishment of any of the acts which constitute sedition by means of speeches. Knowingly concealing such evil practices • When punishable: a. * There is no proposal to commit sedition. the crime is inciting to rebellion. proclamations. when they lead or tend to stir up the people against the lawful authorities or to disturb the peace of the community. emblems. Uttering seditious words or speeches which tend to disturb the public peace or writing.
* Inciting to sedition is an element of sedition.
Article 142 INCITING TO SEDITION
• ELEMENTS: a. Article 142 is. That the offender does not take a direct part in the crime of sedition b. mean. b. * The mere meeting for the purpose of discussing hatred against the government is inciting to sedition.
CRIMES AGAINST POPULAR REPRESENTATION Article 143 Sigma Rho ( ΣΡ ) reviewers
32
. when they suggest or incite rebellious conspiracies or riots. when they tend to disturb or obstruct any lawful officer in executing the functions of his office. or c. emblems etc. publishing. or circulating scurrilous [vulgar. writings. banners. or to prevent the execution of an administrative order. which tend to disturb the public peace c. It cannot be treated as a separate offense against one who is a part of a group that rose up publicly and tumultuously and fought the forces of government. quite broad.
* Considering that the objective of sedition is to express protest against the government and in the process creating hate against public officers. (134) That he incites others to the accomplishment of any of the acts which constitute sedition
c. any act that will generate hatred against the government or a public officer concerned or a social class may amount to Inciting to sedition. actual disturbance not necessary) • Different acts of inciting to sedition: a. when they tend to instigate others to cabal and meet together for unlawful purposes. or other representations tending to the same end (purpose: cause commotion not exactly against the government. libelous] libels against the government or any of the duly constituted authorities thereof. therefore. Lambasting government officials to discredit the government is Inciting to sedition. or b.Elements and Notes in Criminal Law Book II by RENE CALLANTA
* In this crime. proclamations. But if the objective of such preparatory actions is the overthrow of the government.
* The conspiracy must be to prevent the promulgation or execution of any law or the holding of any popular election.
That the inciting is done by means of speeches. or d. writing. It may also be a conspiracy to prevent national and local public officials from freely exercising their duties and functions.

That the offender does any of the following acts 1. He disturbs any of such meetings 2. attending the meeting of the assembly or any of its committees. When these legislative bodies are prevented from meeting and performing their duties. That the offender who may be any persons prevents such meeting by force or fraud
* The crime is against popular representation because it is directed against officers whose primary function is to meet and enact laws.
Article 144 DISTURBANCE OF PROCEEDINGS
• ELEMENTS: a. or from 2. or of any provincial board or city or municipal council or board b. expressing his opinions or 3. the system of government is disturbed. casting his vote b. • Complaint must be filed by member of the Legislative body. or of any provincial board or city or municipal council or board b. speeches or any form of expressing dissent which is not done peacefully but implemented in such a way that it substantially interrupts the meeting of the assembly or adversely affects the respect due to the assembly of its members. By arresting or searching any member thereof while Congress is in a regular or special session. By using force. That there be a meeting of Congress or any of its committees. constitutional commissions or committees or divisions thereof.
Article 145 VIOLATION OF PARLIAMENTARY IMMUNITY
• Acts punishable: a. intimidation. or frauds to prevent any member of Congress from – 1. threats. constitutional commissions or committees or divisions thereof. He behaves while in the presence of any such bodies in such a manner as to interrupt its proceedings or to impair the respect due it * The disturbance can be in the form of utterances. That there be a projected or actual meeting of Congress or any of its committees or subcommittees.Elements and Notes in Criminal Law Book II by RENE CALLANTA ACTS TENDING TO PREVENT THE MEETING OF CONGRESS AND SIMILAR BODIES
• ELEMENTS: a. That the offender is a public officer or employee
Sigma Rho ( ΣΡ ) reviewers
33
. constitutional commissions or committees or division thereof. except in case such member has committed a crime punishable under the code by a penalty higher than prision mayor ( 6 years up ) Elements: 1. when the defect of the meeting is not manifest and requires an investigation before its existence can be determined. Accused may also be punished for contempt. • Chief of Police and mayor who prevented the meeting of the municipal council are liable under Art 143. The three branches of government must continue to exist and perform their duties.

is incited to the commission of the crime of treason. like bolos or knives. penalty is arresto mayor b. the organizers or leaders of the meeting b. considered as leader or organizer of the meeting
Sigma Rho ( ΣΡ ) reviewers
34
. gathering or group of persons whether in a fixed place or moving 2. Meeting of the first form 1. rebellion or insurrection. Meeting."
* The offender is any person and the offended party who is a member of Congress. purpose : to commit any of crimes punishable under the code
3. to 12 years) is not liable Article 145. intimidation or fraud to prevent him from attending the meeting of Congress. Meeting. a public officer who arrests a member of Congress who has committed a crime punishable by prision mayor (six years and one day. at the time of arrest or search. or licensed firearms.
* Under Section 11. * According to Reyes. to be consistent with the Constitution. Audience whether armed or not. gathering or group of persons whether in a fixed place or moving
2. threat. Meeting of the second form 1. persons merely present at the meeting (except when presence is out of curiosity – not liable) • Responsibility of persons merely present at the meeting
a. penalty is prision
correccional • Presumptions if person present at the meeting carries an unlicensed firearm: a. has not committed any crime to justify the use of force.
ILLEGAL ASSEMBLIES AND ASSOCIATIONS Article 146 ILLEGAL ASSEMBLIES
• Two (2) Types of illegal assemblies: a. the phrase "by a penalty higher than prision mayor" in Article 145 should be amended to read: "by the penalty of prision mayor or higher. sedition or direct assault. is in a regular or special session
4. Article VI of the Constitution. if they carry arms. That the member searched has not committed a crime punishable under the code by a
penalty higher than prision mayor (1987 constitution: privilege from arrest while congress in session in all offenses punishable by not more than 6 years imprisonment).Elements and Notes in Criminal Law Book II by RENE CALLANTA
2. purpose of the meeting is to commit acts punishable under the RPC b. if they are not armed. • • Not all the persons present at the meeting of the first form of illegal assembly must be armed Persons liable for illegal assembly a. meeting attended by armed persons b. That Congress. That he arrests or searches any member of Congress 3.

Organized totally or partially for the purpose of committing any of the crimes in RPC Or b. namely. The mere gathering for the purpose is sufficient to bring about the crime already. directors and president of the association b.
(2)
Article 147 ILLEGAL ASSOCIATIONS
• ELEMENTS: a. the gathering of drug pushers to facilitate drug trafficking is not illegal assembly because the purpose is not violative of the Revised Penal Code but of The Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972. Without gathering. It includes a violation of a special law or those against public morals. there is no illegal assembly.
Two forms of illegal assembly (1) No attendance of armed men. and other representation. In illegal association.. Some were with firearms. gambling. the basis is the formation of or organization of an association to engage in an unlawful purpose which is not limited to a violation of the Revised Penal Code. although not armed. When the illegal purpose of the gathering is to incite people to commit the crimes mentioned above. mere members of the association ILLEGAL ASSEMBLY (146) ILLEGAL ASSOCIATION (147) Must be an actual meeting of armed No need for such persons to commit any of the crimes punishable under the RPC. sedition or assault a person in authority. as amended. rebellion. It is the meeting and the attendance at such Act of forming or organizing and that are punished membership in the association Persons liable: leaders and those present Founders. president and members
•
Public morals refers to crimes punished under Title Six of the Revised Penal Code. sedition or assault upon a person in authority. shall be deemed leaders or organizers of said meeting.
•
The gravamen of the offense is mere assembly of or gathering of people for illegal purpose punishable by the Revised Penal Code. which is a special law. grave scandal. sedition or assault upon a person in authority of his agent. If unlawful purpose is a crime under a special law. not for conspiracy. to commit treason. For example. RESISTANCE AND DISOBEDIENCE Article 148 Sigma Rho ( ΣΡ ) reviewers
35
. Armed men attending the gathering – If the illegal purpose is other than those mentioned above. prostitution and vagrancy. by means of speeches. it has nothing to do with decency. printed matters. there is no illegal assembly. not acts of obscenity. Liable for illegal assembly. directors. rebellion or insurrection. the presence of armed men is unnecessary.
ASSAULT. the presence of armed men during the gathering brings about the crime of illegal assembly.Elements and Notes in Criminal Law Book II by RENE CALLANTA
* Those who incite the audience. Meaning of public morals: inimical to public welfare. rebellion or insurrection. but persons in the meeting are incited to commit treason. or of individuals who. are incited to the commission of treason. founders. For some purpose contrary to public morals Persons liable: a. but for gathering with armed men. Example: Persons conspiring to rob a bank were arrested. the basis of liability is the gathering for an illegal purpose which constitutes a crime under the Revised Penal Code. Distinction between illegal assembly and illegal association In illegal assembly.

That there is no public uprising.
That the aim of the offender is to attain any of the purposes of the crime of rebellion or any of the objects of the crimes of sedition. acquittal or conviction in one is a bar to the prosecution in the other.Elements and Notes in Criminal Law Book II by RENE CALLANTA DIRECT ASSAULT •
ELEMENTS OF THE 1ST FORM OF DIRECT ASSAULT a.
•
ELEMENTS OF THE 2ND FORM OF DIRECT ASSAULT: a. that is. it is always complexed with the material consequence of the unlawful act . the crime of direct assault can not be separated from the material result of the act.
d. * So. (victim need not be person in authority) That there is no public uprising. * The only time when it is not complexed is when material consequence is a light felony. The crime is direct assault by committing acts of sedition under Article 139 (5).
That at the time of the assault the person in authority or his agent (a) is engaged in the actual performance of official duties (motive is not essential).
• •
Hitting the policeman on the chest with fist is not direct assault because if done against an agent of a person in authority. or that he is assaulted (b) by reason of the past performance of official duties (motive is essential).
* Crime of direct assault can only be committed by means of dolo. That the person assaulted is a person in authority or his agent. spoiling of the property.
b. It cannot be committed by culpa. In the example of the judge who was killed. the force employed must be of serious character The force employed need not be serious when the offended party is a person in authority (ex. direct assault with murder) except if resulting in a light felony. the crime would be direct assault with murder or homicide. slight physical injury. * To be specific. if a judge was killed while he was holding a session. The crime of direct assault punishes the spirit of lawlessness and the contempt or hatred for the authority or the rule of law. There was no robbery for there was no intent to gain. the crime is direct assault with murder or homicide. (c) makes a serious intimidation. That the offender (a) makes an attack. in which case. (b) employs force. injure or assault). but there is no public uprising. b. Direct assault absorbs the lighter felony. Laying of hands)
Sigma Rho ( ΣΡ ) reviewers
36
. There could be direct assault if the offender killed the judge simply because the judge is so strict in the fulfillment of his duty.
c.
c. of any person municipality or province or the national government of all or any its property.
Example of the first form of direct assault: Three men broke into a National Food Authority warehouse and lamented sufferings of the people. the killing is not the direct assault. or (d) makes a serious resistance. if an offender who is charged with direct assault and in another court for the slight physical Injury which is part of the act. The crime committed was direct assault. They did not even help themselves to a single grain. It is the spirit of hate which is the essence of direct assault.
e. If the unlawful act was murder or homicide committed under circumstance of lawlessness or contempt of authority. That the offender employs force or intimidation.
•
Always complexed with the material consequence of the act (e. that is. as the case may be. So. where the spirit is present. They called on people to help themselves to all the rice.
That the offender knows that the one he is assaulting is a person in authority or his agent in the exercise of his duties (with intention to offend. the consequence is absorbed
* The crime is not based on the material consequence of the unlawful act.g. but murder. for any political or social end.

It is enough that the offender knew that the person in authority was performing an official function whatever may be the reason for the attack. Barrio councilman and any person who comes to the aid of the person in authority. and persons charged with the supervision of public or duly recognized private schools. 11 Phil. it is also important that the offended knew that the person he is attacking is a person in authority or an agent of a person in authority. In the second form.
Sigma Rho ( ΣΡ ) reviewers
37
. The crime is manifested by the spirit of lawlessness. • When assault is made by reason of the performance of his duty there is no need for actual performance of his official duty when attacked
In direct assault of the first form. policeman. if a judge was killed while resisting the taking of his watch. the crime may simply be the material consequence of he unlawful act: murder or homicide. No knowledge. Example.
* The offender and the offended party are both public officers. professors. teachers. In the second form of direct assault. Pointing a gun) Force Employed Need not be serious Must be of serious character Intimidation/Resistance Serious Serious
Person in Authority Agent
•
PERSON IN AUTHORITY: any person directly vested with jurisdiction (power or authority to govern and execute the laws) whether as an individual or as a member of some court or governmental corporation. 343) • There can be no assault upon or disobedience to one authority by another when they both contend that they were in the exercise of their respective duties. by direct provision of law or by election or by appointment by competent authority. municipal treasurer. you have to distinguish a situation where a person in authority or his agent was attacked while performing official functions. the attack must be by reason of his official function in the past. so is a Division Superintendent of schools. sheriff. from a situation when he is not performing such functions. President of Sanitary Division and a teacher
•
* In applying the provisions of Articles 148 and 151 .S. Motive becomes important in this respect. innocent party is entitled to defend himself and cannot be held liable for assault or resistance nor for physical injuries. board or commission A barangay captain is a person in authority. vs.Elements and Notes in Criminal Law Book II by RENE CALLANTA
• The intimidation or resistance must be serious whether the offended party is an agent only or a person in authority (ex. 193).
•
AGENT: is one who. if the person in authority or the agent was killed when no longer performing official functions. 59 Phil. Vallejo. the crime is always direct assault. Hernandez. there is no direct assault. although what may have happened was a purely private affair. (Example. If there is unlawful aggression employed by the public officer. no lawlessness or contempt. is charged with the maintenance of public order and the protection and security of life and property.
•
If attack was done during the exercise of official functions. the stature of the offended person is immaterial. The Supreme Court said that assault may still be committed. For the crime to be direct assault. postmaster. When the person in authority or the agent provoked/attacked first. because he acts in legitimate self-defense
• •
* The offended party in assault must not be the aggressor. colleges and universities and lawyers in the actual performance of their duties or on the occasion of such performance. performing his official functions. as in fact the offender is even subjected to a greater penalty (U. agents of the BIR. Malacañang confidential agent) Even when the person in authority or the agent agrees to fight.
* On the other hand. shall be deemed a person in authority. any form of resistance which may be in the nature of force against him will be considered as an act of legitimate defense. still direct assault. (People vs.

Article 149 INDIRECT ASSAULT
• ELEMENTS: a. but one of the protagonists stabs the policeman. Example. • a private person who comes to the aid of a person in authority is by fiction of law deemed or is considered an agent of a person in authority. * Take note that under Article 152. and he is likewise assaulted. That the offender makes use of force or intimidation upon such person coming to the aid of the authority or his agent. The assault is upon a person who comes in aid of the agent of a person in authority. refusing without legal excuse to obey summons
Sigma Rho ( ΣΡ ) reviewers
38
. (People vs. 57 Phil. It shall be absorbed by the greater crime of direct assault. Acierto.
•
* The victim in indirect assault should be a private person who comes in aid of an agent of a person in authority. • Indirect assault can be committed only when a direct assault is also committed To be indirect assault. when the offender is a public officer or employee c. the person coming to the aid of the person in authority being considered as an agent and an attack on the latter is already direct assault). 148. b. when the assault is committed with a weapon b. 614) • Direct assault cannot be committed during rebellion.
* If the crime of direct assault is committed with the use of force and it resulted in the infliction of slight physical injuries. That a person in authority or his agent is the victim of any of the forms of direct assault defined in ART. In this respect it is enough that the offender should know that the offended party was exercising some form of authority. Aiding a policeman under attack. as amended. 1978. the latter shall not be considered as a separate offense. when any person comes in aid of a person in authority. The victim cannot be the person in authority or his agent.
May direct assault be committed upon a private individual? Yes. If such person were the one attacked.Elements and Notes in Criminal Law Book II by RENE CALLANTA
For example. Under Republic Act No. if two persons were quarreling and a policeman in civilian clothes comes and stops them. said person at that moment is no longer a civilian – he is constituted as an agent of the person in authority. When a private person comes to the aid of a person in authority. the person who should be aided is the agent (not the person in authority because it is already direct assault.
•
Circumstances qualifying the offense (Qualified Assault):
a. there would be no direct assault unless the offender knew that he is a policeman. It is not necessary that the offender knows what is meant by person in authority or an agent of one because ignorantia legis non excusat. That a person comes to the aid of such authority or his agent.
c. or with serious physical injuries. the crime would be direct assault
Article 150 DISOBEDIENCE TO SUMMONS
• Acts punishable: a. when the offender lays hand upon a person in authority
•
Complex crime of direct assault with homicide or murder.

That the offender resists or seriously disobeys such person in authority or his agent. refusing to be sworn or placed under affirmation c. 149 and 150.
Sigma Rho ( ΣΡ ) reviewers
39
. to obey summons issued by the House of Representatives or the Senate. no manifest intention to defy the law and the officers enforcing it. 22 Phil. it shall enjoy the same privilege.
Article 151 RESISTANCE/DISOBEDIENCE TO A PERSON IN AUTHORITY OR THE AGENT OF SUCH PERSON (par. d. refusing to answer any legal inquiry to produce books. That a person in authority or his agent is engaged in the performance of official duty or gives a lawful order to the offender. nor to judicial decisions defining or declaring the rights and obligations of the parties for the same give reliefs only in the form of civil actions. without legal excuse. Rather. 148. and disobeying a PIA or his agent. * The power to punish is not extended to the local executive bodies. b. so serious. If a Constitutional Commission is created.Elements and Notes in Criminal Law Book II by RENE CALLANTA
b. 1)
• ELEMENTS: a. b. * The exercise by the legislature of its contempt power is a matter of self-preservation. Direct Assault (148)
c. c. 183 The Supreme Court held that: “the violation does not refer to resistance or disobedience to the legal provisions of the law. Ramayrat. The reason given is that local legislative bodies are but a creation of law and therefore. Use of force against an agent of PIA Use of force against an agent of a PIA is not must be serious and deliberate. records etc. seriously resisting a PIA or his agent. That an agent of a person in authority is engaged in the performance of official duty gives a lawful order to the offender.
That such disobedience is not of a serious nature.
SIMPLE DISOBEDIENCE (par. 2)
• ELEMENTS: a. independent of the judicial branch. The contempt power of the legislature is inherent and sui generis. the disobedience or resistance is to the orders directly issued by the authorities in the exercise of their official duties. US vs. inducing disobedience to a summons or refusal to be sworn * The act punished is refusal. employing force. there must be an express grant of the same. That the act of the offender is not included in the provisions of arts.” Resistant and Disobedience to a Person in Authority or Agents of such Person (151) PIA or his agent must be engaged in the PIA or his agent must be in the actual performance of official duties or that he performance of his duties. is assaulted Direct assault is committed in 4 ways – Committed by resisting or seriously by attacking. restraining another from attending as witness in such body e. That the offender disobeys such agent of a person in authority. for them to exercise the power of contempt.

such private individual. is charged with the maintenance of public order and the protection and security of life and property. Examples of Persons in Authority : a.Elements and Notes in Criminal Law Book II by RENE CALLANTA
* In both resistance against an agent of a person in authority and direct assault by resisting an agent of a person in authority. as earlier discussed. as there is no manifest intention to defy the law and the officers enforcing it.
Article 152 PERSONS IN AUTHORITY/AGENTS OF PERSONS IN AUTHORITY: • •
PERSONS IN AUTHORITY – any person directly vested with jurisdiction. otherwise. Examples of agents of PIA : a. Lawyers in the actual performance of their professional duties or on the occasion of such performance AGENT OF PERSON IN AUTHORITY – any person who. board or commission. protection and the security of life. even a case of simple resistance to an arrest. Municipal councilor g. and a private individual comes to his rescue and is himself assaulted while giving the assistance. or the maintenance of a desirable and balanced environment. and not indirect assault. a private individual comes to his rescue. Barrio policeman c. Barrio councilman b. When the offended party is a person in authority and while being assaulted. while other barangay officials and members who may be designated by law or ordinance and charged with the maintenance of public order. there is force employed. the crime committed is indirect assault. and any barangay member who comes to the aid of persons in authority shall be deemed AGENT of persons in authority. Any person who comes to the aid of persons in authority Section 388 of the Local Gov’t Code provides that “for purposes of the RPC. Persons charged with the supervision of public or duly recognized private schools. But if the person assaulted is an agent of a person in authority. Barangay leader d. Justice of the peace f. by operation of law.
•
•
•
•
CRIMES AGAINST PUBLIC DISORDERS Sigma Rho ( ΣΡ ) reviewers
40
. by direct provision of law or by election or by appointment by competent authority. property. Barangay chairman c. Teachers h. Provincial fiscal e. the punong barangay. would constitute direct assault and the lesser offense of resistance or disobedience in Article 151 would entirely disappear. but the use of force in resistance is not so serious. If no force is employed by the offender in resisting or disobeying a person in authority. * The attack or employment of force which gives rise to the crime of direct assault must be serious and deliberate. the use of any kind or degree of force will give rise to direct assault. sangguniang barangay members and members of the lupong tagapamayapa in each barangay shall be deemed as persons in authority in their jurisdictions. Municipal mayor d. colleges and universities j. which always requires the use of force of some kind. But when the one resisted is a person in authority. mutates mutandis becomes an agent of a person in authority. Professors i. whether as an individual or as a member of some court or governmental corporation. Barangay captain b. the crime committed is resistance or serious disobedience under the first paragraph of Article 151. Any assault committed against such person is direct assault.

the meeting is unlawful from the beginning and the utterances made are deliberately articulated to incite others to rise publicly and rebel against the government. the crime is disturbance of the public order.
•
•
This article should be distinguished from inciting to rebellion or sedition as discussed under Article 138 and 142. the situation must be distinguished from inciting to sedition or rebellion. It becomes unlawful only because of the outcry made.
TUMULTUOUS – if caused by more than 3 persons who are armed or provided with means of violence (circumstance qualifying the disturbance/interruption) – “tumultuous in character”
•
* The essence is creating public disorder. the crime would be inciting to sedition. is not intentionally calculated to induce others to commit rebellion or sedition. gatherings or peaceful meetings. Causing any serious disturbance in a public place. Burying with pomp the body of a person who has been legally executed.
•
•
It is also disturbance of the public order if a convict legally put to death is buried with pomp .
The crime of disturbance of public order may be committed in a public or private place. This crime is brought about by creating serious disturbances in public places. interruption. • For a crime to be under this article. c. Displaying placards or emblems which provoke a disturbance of public order in such place e. it must not fall under Articles 131 (prohibition. tempers went high and so the speaker started inciting the audience to rise in sedition against the government. although rebellious or seditious in nature. What makes it inciting to rebellion or sedition is the act of inciting the audience to commit rebellion or sedition. its inciting to rebellion or sedition. which tends to incite rebellion or sedition in the meeting. The term “armed” does not refer to firearms but includes even big stones capable of causing grave injury. it might incite others to hatred.
if the act is not included in Art 131 and 132 (Public Officers interrupting peaceful meetings or religious worship). even before he delivered his speech. and dissolution of peaceful meetings) and 132 (interruption of religious worship). He should not be made out as a martyr. Interrupting or disturbing public performances. and even in private places where public functions or performances are being held. Making any outcry tending to incite rebellion or sedition in any meeting. if the offender had no such criminal intent. Art 131 and 132 punishes the same acts if committed by public officers who areNOT participants in the meeting The outcry is merely a public disorder if it is an unconscious outburst which. already had the criminal intent to incite the listeners to rise to sedition. otherwise. In the former.
* In the act of making outcry during speech tending to incite rebellion or sedition. but in the course of his speech. office or establishment
b. However.
•
If the act of disturbing or interrupting a meeting or religious ceremony is NOT committed by public officers. functions. In the latter case. or if committed by public officers who are not participants therein. * The disturbance of the pubic order is tumultuous and the penalty is increased if it is brought about by armed men. If the speaker. public buildings. the law is violated only where the disturbance is made while a
Sigma Rho ( ΣΡ ) reviewers
41
. the meeting is legal and peaceful. this article applies. If committed in a private place. association or public place d.Elements and Notes in Criminal Law Book II by RENE CALLANTA Article 153 TUMULTS AND OTHER DISTURBANCES OF PUBLIC ORDER • TYPES:
a.

•
Charivari – mock serenade or discordant noises made with kettles. justifying or extolling any act punished by law. Publishing or causing to be published. Illegal discharge of firearm under Article 254 if the firearm is directed or pointed to a particular person when discharged but intent to kill is absent. the crime cannot be committed. publishing or distributing or (causing the same) books.Elements and Notes in Criminal Law Book II by RENE CALLANTA
public function or performance is going on. 248 prohibits the reprinting. If the annoyance is intended for a particular person. firecracker. periodicals or leaflets which do not bear the real printer’s name or which are classified as anonymous. provided the act is not covered by Art 153 (tumult). * The purpose of the law is to punish the spreading of false information which tends to cause panic. or before they have been published officially d. utterances or speeches c.
Article 154 UNLAWFUL USE OF MEANS OF PUBLICATION AND UNLAWFUL UTTERANCES • TYPES:
a. calculated to cause alarm or danger b. Republic Act No. Disturbing the public peace while wandering about at night or while engaged in any other nocturnal amusement d. pamphlets. Instigating or taking active part in any charivari or other disorderly meeting offensive to another or prejudicial to public tranquility c. by means of printing. Printing. insult or annoy
WHEN A PERSON DISCHARGES A FIREARM IN PUBLIC . Attempted homicide. Maliciously publishing or causing to be published any official resolution or document without proper authority.
Article 155 ALARMS AND SCANDALS • TYPES:
a. tin horns etc. Causing any disturbance or scandal in public places while intoxicated or otherwise.
Sigma Rho ( ΣΡ ) reviewers
42
. lithography or any other means of publication as news any false news which may endanger the public order. Discharging any firearm. murder. the act may constitute any of the possible crimes under the Revised Penal Code: (1) (2) (3) Alarms and scandals if the firearm when discharged was not directed to any particular person. b. confusion.
Understand the nature of the crime of alarms and scandals as one that disturbs public tranquility or public peace. or parricide if the firearm when discharged is directed against a person and intent to kill is present.
* Actual public disorder or actual damage to the credit of the State is not necessary. distrust and divide people in their loyalty to the duly constituted authorities. or other explosive within any town or public place. the crime is unjust vexation. reproduction or republication of government publications and official documents without previous authority
The article also punishes any person who knowingly publishes official acts or documents which are not officially promulgated. Without a public gathering in a private place. rocket. by the same means or by words. Encouraging disobedience to the law or to the constituted authorities or by praising. or cause damage to the interest or credit of the State. designed to deride.

c. * The only point of distinction between the two crimes lies on whether the offender is the custodian of the prisoner or not at the time the prisoner was made to escape.
b. the person involved may be a convict or a mere detention prisoner. 224 and 225 of the Revised Penal Code . not the intent Who are Liable Private persons. In Araneta v. it was held that if a person is shot at and is wounded. or helps the escape of such person (if the
escapee is serving final judgement. as long as he is classified as a prisoner. In both acts.
Sigma Rho ( ΣΡ ) reviewers
43
. Intent to kill is inherent in the use of the deadly weapon. Offender is a private individual • Prisoner may be detention prisoner or one sentenced by virtue of a final judgment
* Even if the prisoner is in the hospital or asylum or any place for detention of prisoner. Both crimes may be committed by public officers as well as private persons. It can not be frustrated because the offended party is not mortally wounded. Mitigating circumstance – if it takes place outside the penal establishment by taking the guards by surprise
• •
* correlate the crime of delivering person from jail with infidelity in the custody of prisoners punished under Articles 223. that is. he is guilty of evasion of sentence). the offender may be a public officer or a private citizen. That there is a person confined in a jail or penal establishment. • A policeman assigned to the city jail as guard who while off-duty released a prisoner is liable here
* Even if the prisoner returned to the jail after several hours. • It may be committed through negligence Circumstances qualifying the offense – is committed by means of violence. outsider
CRIME Nature of Crime Tumults and other Crime against Public Order Disturbances (153) Alarms and Scandals (155) Crime against Public Order
Article 156 DELIVERING PRISONERS FROM JAILS
• ELEMENTS : a. the crime is automatically attempted homicide. this article applies. > In both crimes. Do not think that infidelity in the custody of prisoners can only be committed by a public officer and delivering persons from jail can only be committed by private person. outsider Private persons. understand that it is not necessary that the offended party be wounded or hit. Mere discharge of firearm towards another with intent to kill already amounts to attempted homicide or attempted murder or attempted parricide. and he has been officially categorized as a prisoner. intimidation or bribery. as such place is considered extension of the penal institution. a formal complaint or information has been filed in court. (4) (5) Grave Threats – If the weapon is not discharged but merely pointed to another Other Light Threats – If drawn in a quarrel but not in self defense
•
What governs is the result.Elements and Notes in Criminal Law Book II by RENE CALLANTA
In this connection. Court of Appeals. That the offender removes therefor such person. the one who removed him from jail is liable.

(2) Failure to return within 48 hours after having left the penal establishment because of a calamity. But if such prisoner knows of the plot to remove him from jail and cooperates therein by escaping.
•
A continuing offense. the prisoner so escaping may also have criminal liability and this is so if the prisoner is a convict serving sentence by final judgment.00 pesos as bribe money. agreed with Juan to allow Maria to escape by not locking the gate of the city jail. if she is a detention prisoner. If Maria is a sentenced prisoner. Provided that Juan comes across with P5. escaping from his prison cell when his case is still on appeal does not make said prisoner liable for Evasion of Service of Sentence. he does not incur liability from escaping if he does not know of the plan to remove him from jail. that the prisoner immediately returned is immaterial. (3) Violating the condition of conditional pardon under Article 159. Thus. the custodian and the prisoner – three crimes are committed: (1) Infidelity in the custody of prisoners.
EVASION OF SENTENCE OR SERVICE
EVASION OF SERVICE OF SENTENCE HAS THREE FORMS: (1) By simply leaving or escaping from the penal establishment under Article 157. the crime he committed is delivering prisoners from jail. he himself becomes liable for delivering prisoners from jail as a principal by indispensable cooperation. But it applies to persons convicted by final judgment with a penalty of destierro. she will be liable for evasion of service of sentence under Article 157. But if the offender is not the custodian of the prisoner at that time . He will also be able for the crime of bribery. there is no question that Pedro.
* A detention prisoner even if he escapes from confinement has no criminal liability. whether infidelity in the custody of prisoners or delivering prisoners from jail. she commits no crime. His voluntary return may only be mitigating. even though he is a public officer. conflagration or mutiny has been announced as already passed under Article 158.
In leaving or escaping from jail or prison. That the offender is a convict by final judgment. It is enough that he left the penal establishment by escaping therefrom.
It is possible that several crimes may be committed in one set of facts. The crime of evasion of service of sentence is committed by the prisoner who escapes if such prisoner is a convict serving sentence by final judgment. (fact •
of return immaterial).Elements and Notes in Criminal Law Book II by RENE CALLANTA •
If the offender is the custodian at that time .
Sigma Rho ( ΣΡ ) reviewers
44
. That he evades the service of his sentence by escaping during the term if his sentence. the jail warden. If the prisoner who escapes is only a detention prisoner. That he is serving his sentence which consists in deprivation of liberty (destierro included) c. assuming that Pedro. it cannot be committed when the prisoner involved is merely a detention prisoner.
b.
Article 157 EVASION OF SERVICE OF SENTENCE
• ELEMENTS : a. For instance.000. as the jail warden. 212. and (3) Evasion of service of sentence. conflagration or mutiny and such calamity.
LIABILITY OF THE PRISONER OR DETAINEE WHO ESCAPED – When these crimes are committed. the crime is infidelity in the custody of prisoners. From the facts given. The arrangement was not known to Maria but when she noticed the unlocked gate of the city jail she took advantage of the situation and escaped. But the same will not absolve his criminal liability. * If three persons are involved – a stranger. By the very nature of the crime. is liable for the crime of infidelity in the custody of the prisoner. Juan will be liable for the crime of delivering a prisoner from jail and for corruption of public official under Art. being analogous to voluntary surrender. (2) Delivery of the prisoner from jail.

That the offender is a convict by final judgement who is confined in a penal institution. not on the original sentence.
•
Circumstances qualifying the offense (done thru): a. walls. on the occasion of such disorder or during the mutiny. That there is disorder. breaking doors.
•
Offender must escape to be entitled to allowance
> Those who did not leave the penal establishment are not entitled to the 1/5 credit. That the offender fails to give himself up to the authorities within 48 hours following the issuance of a proclamation by the chief executive announcing the passing away of such calamity. roofs or floors c. he returned to the Philippines in violation of the sentence. 2. conflagration. earthquake. resulting from.
Sigma Rho ( ΣΡ ) reviewers
45
. shall be imposed but the 1/5 penalty is based on the remaining period of the sentence. This is so because the penalty for the evasion can not be more severe than the penalty evaded.
The leaving from the penal establishment is not the basis of criminal liability. similar catastrophe. gates. c.S.Elements and Notes in Criminal Law Book II by RENE CALLANTA •
• • Offenders – not minor delinquents nor detention prisoners If escaped within the 15 day appeal period – no evasion No applicable to deportation as the sentence
The crime of evasion of service of sentence may be committed even if the sentence is destierro. d. 36 Phil. or 4. violence or intimidation d. also 1/5. vs. disguise.1. (U. Under Article 158. not imprisonment. Later on. But if the prisoner fails to return within said 48 hours. 867). the penalty upon the convict is to be served by way of destierro also. and was ordered by the court to be deported. mutiny . those who return within 48 hours are given credit or deduction from the remaining period of their sentence equivalent to 1/5 of the original term of the sentence. or 5. Held: He is not guilty of Evasion of Service of Sentence as the law is not applicable to offenses executed by deportation. using picklocks. b. In no case shall that penalty exceed six months. or 3. explosion. a foreigner. * If the sentence violated is destierro. Only those who left and returned within the 48-hour period. Loo Hoe. connivance with other convicts or employees of the penal institution
* A. EARTHQUAKES OR OTHER CALAMITIES
• ELEMENTS : a. unlawful entry (by “scaling”) b. CONFLAGRATIONS. That the offender evades the service of his sentence by leaving the penal institution where he is confined. deceit. an added penalty.
Article 158 EVASION OF SERVICE OF SENTENCE ON THE OCCASION OF DISORDERS. conflagration or mutiny had been announced. false keys. and this is committed if the convict sentenced to destierro will enter the prohibited places or come within the prohibited radius of 25 kilometers to such places as stated in the judgment. It is the failure to return within 48 hours after the passing of the calamity. windows. was found guilty of violation of the law. not participated.

The mutiny referred to here involves subordinate personnel rising against the supervisor within the penal establishment. But if under Revised Admin Code.
•
Disarming the guards is not mutiny
* Violation attributed to the accused is no longer referred to the court for judicial inquiry or resolution.
* In violation of conditional pardon. the violation is not substantive but administrative in nature.
•
The administrative liability of the convict under the conditional pardon is different and has nothing to do with his criminal liability for the evasion of service of sentence in the event that the condition of the pardon has been violated.
* If the condition of the pardon is violated. That he violated any of the conditions of such pardon. • Condition extends to special laws – violation of illegal voting The condition imposed upon the prisoner not to be guilty of another crime is not limited to those punishable under the Revised Penal Code. Absent such declaration. the remedy against the accused may be in the form of prosecution under Article 159. It includes those punished under Special Law. simply leaving or escaping the penal establishment. the same is of no moment as in the meantime he has committed a violation of the law. b. not under the present article but for pure evasion of service of sentence under Article 157. The law has provided sufficient guidelines for the jail warden to follow. even though committed beyond the remaining period of the sentence. reincarnate offender without trial
Sigma Rho ( ΣΡ ) reviewers
46
.
Article 159 VIOLATION OF CONDITIONAL PARDON
• ELEMENTS: a. He must issue a proclamation to the effect that the calamity is over. it may also be an administrative action by referring the violation to the court of origin and praying for the issuance of a warrant of arrest justified under Section 64 of the Revised Administrative Code. * This disquisition will not apply if the offender who escapes taking advantage of the calamities enumerated herein is apprehended by the authorities after 48 hours from the declaration that the calamity is over. Corral. (People vs. the violation will amount to this crime only if the condition is violated during the remaining period of the sentence. In such case. a sedition. At this stage. c. It is only extended to one who returns but made inside the 48 hours delimited by the proclamation. This is when the conditional pardon expressly so provides or the language of the conditional pardon clearly shows the intention to make the condition perpetual even beyond the unserved portion of the sentence. That the offender was a convict. as a rule. there is a need for the Chief Executive to make such announcement. that is. 74 Phil. Exception: where the violation of the condition of the pardon will constitute evasion of service of sentence. no conviction necessary. Mutiny – organized unlawful resistance to a superior officer. One who escapes during a riot will be subject to Article 157 .Elements and Notes in Criminal Law Book II by RENE CALLANTA •
For such event to be considered as a calamity. a revolt
•
The mutiny referred to in the second form of evasion of service of sentence does not include riot. That he was granted a conditional pardon by the chief executive. President has power to arrest.
•
Offender must have been found guilty of the subsequent offense before he can be prosecuted under this Article. Even if the prisoner will return to the penal institution where he was confined. Even if the events herein mentioned may be considered as calamity. the President must declared it to be so. 357). the convict may be required to serve the unserved portion of the sentence even though the violation has taken place when the sentence has already lapsed.

Elements and Notes in Criminal Law Book II by RENE CALLANTA
* Article 159 is a distinct felony. That he committed a new felony before beginning to serve such sentence or while serving the same. He will be entitled to a full blown hearing. not special laws. et al. or while serving the same. prision correccional in its minimum period – if the penalty remitted does not exceed 6 years
b.. the unexpired portion of his original sentence – if the penalty remitted is higher than 6
years
COMMISSION OF ANOTHER CRIME Article 160 COMMISSION OF ANOTHER CRIME DURING SERVICE OF PENALTY IMPOSED FOR ANOTHER PREVIOUS OFFENSE-PENALTY: (quasi-recidivism)
• ELEMENTS a. It is a substantive crime. The court will do away or will ignore mitigating and aggravating circumstances in considering the penalty to be imposed. 152 SCRA 292)
VIOLATION OF PARDON ORDINARY EVASION Infringement of conditions/terms of To evade the penalty given by the courts President – disturbs the public order • Two penalties provided: a. The mandate is absolute and is justified by the finding that the accused is suffering from some degree of moral perversity if not total incorrigibility. Gonzales.
•
•
Quasi-recidivism : a person after having been convicted by final judgement shall commit a new felony before beginning to serve such sentence. (People vs. Except: Unworthy or Habitual Delinquent If new felony is evasion of sentence – offender is not a quasi-recidivist Penalty: maximum period of the penalty for the new felony should be imposed
• • • •
* Quasi-recidivism is a special aggravating circumstance which directs the court to impose the maximum period of the penalty prescribed by law for the new felony. the prisoner must be formally charged in court. 65 SCRA 460) • Quasi-Recidivism may be offset by a special privileged mitigating circumstance (ex. Only after a final judgment has been rendered against him may he suffer the penalty prescribed under Article 159 (Torres vs. Alicia. Bautista. (People vs. et al. 95 SCRA 227) * Quasi-recidivism is an aggravating circumstance which cannot be offset by any mitigating circumstance. There will be no occasion for the court to consider imposing the minimum. Minority)
TITLE FOUR CRIMES AGAINST PUBLIC INTEREST
Sigma Rho ( ΣΡ ) reviewers
47
. That the offender was already convicted by final judgement of one offense. To be appreciated as a special aggravating circumstance. it must be alleged in the information. Second crimes must belong to the RPC. For one to suffer the consequence of its violation. b. in full enjoyment of his right to due process.. First crime may be either from the RPC or special laws Reiteracion: offender shall have served out his sentence for the prior offense A quasi-recidivist may be pardoned at age 70. medium or maximum period of the penalty.

17. That the offender knew of the counterfeiting or forgery. Using false certificates (Art. Forging the signature of the President c. 2. Importation and disposition of falsely marked articles or merchandise made of gold.
Article 161 COUNTERFEITING GREAT SEAL OF GOVERNMENT • TYPES:
a. Selling of false or mutilated coins. 165). 24. Manufacturing and possession of instruments or implements for falsification (Art. 28. 162). Illegal possession and use of forged treasury or bank notes and other instruments of credit (Art. Machinations in public auction (Art. 15. Forging treasury or bank notes or other documents payable to bearer. Mutilation of coins. 180). 164). 161). telegraph and telephone messages and use of said falsified messages (Art. 168). 5. Making and importing and uttering false coins (Art. 26. 172). 184). 3. 182). Forging the stamp of the President • • When the signature of the President is forged. Falsification of wireless. 9. 174). 178). 11. 185). others signed it – not the President. fraudulent designation of origin. 189). and false description (Art. 187). Usurpation of authority or official functions (Art. False testimony in civil cases (Art. 171). importing and uttering instruments not payable to bearer (Art. it is not falsification but forging of signature under this article Signature must be forged. 13. Monopolies and combinations in restraint of trade (Art. Using forged signature or counterfeiting seal or stamp (Art. Substituting and altering trade marks and trade names or service marks (Art. 23. False testimony in other cases and perjury (Art. 181). Illegal use of uniforms or insignia (Art. 19.
Article 162 USING FORGED SIGNATURE OR COUNTERFEIT SEAL OR STAMP
ELEMENTS: a. 22. The essence of the crime under this title is that which defraud the public in general. importing and uttering of such false or forged notes and documents (Art. or other precious metals or their alloys (Art. Falsification by public officer. false certificates of merit or service (Art. silver. 167). 8. Counterfeiting. Forging the great seal of the Government b. 170). cable. There is deceit perpetrated upon the public. 175). 16. False testimony favorable to the defendant (Art. 179). 163). Offering false testimony in evidence (Art.Elements and Notes in Criminal Law Book II by RENE CALLANTA
Crimes against public interest 1. 176). 20. 14. without connivance (Art. 27. That the great seal of the republic was counterfeited or the signature or stamp of the chief executive was forged by another person. 177).
* The crimes in this title are in the nature of fraud or falsity to the public. 7. 4. This is the act that is being punished under this title. False testimony against a defendant (Art. b. or service mark. 21. Falsification of legislative documents (Art. Unfair competition and fraudulent registration of trade mark or trade name. 186). importation and uttering of mutilated coins (Art. 12. 18. 173).
Sigma Rho ( ΣΡ ) reviewers
48
. Counterfeiting the great seal of the Government of the Philippines (Art. 10. 166). employee or notary (Art. 188). 183). Using fictitious name and concealing true name (Art. 25. False medical certificates. Falsification by private individuals and use of falsified documents (Art. 6.

Mutilating coins of the legal currency.
The first acts of falsification or falsity are – (1) (2) (3) Counterfeiting – refers to money or currency. Forgery – refers to instruments of credit and obligations and securities issued by the Philippine government or any banking institution authorized by the Philippine government to issue the same. That he used the counterfeit seal or forged signature or stamp. 2. different design) such as to deceive an ordinary person in believing it to be genuine Utter – to pass counterfeited coins. 3. the act of imitating or manufacturing the coin of the government is penalized. he connives with counterfeiters or importers. • Offender is NOT the forger/not the cause of the counterfeiting
Article 163 MAKING AND IMPORTING AND UTTERING FALSE COINS
• ELEMENTS : a. there are two crimes that may be committed: (1) Counterfeiting coins -. Silver coins of the Philippines or coins of the Central Bank of the Philippines. Coin of the currency of a foreign country.
In so far as coins in circulation are concerned. 2. b. the law wants to prevent people from trying their ingenuity in their imitation of the manufacture of money.
• • •
• •
Counterfeiting – imitation of legal or genuine coin (may contain more silver. c. Falsification – can only be committed in respect of documents. deliver or give away Import – to bring to port the same Both Philippine and foreign state coins Applies also to coins withdrawn from circulation Essence of article: making of coins without authority
•
Acts punished 1. or if it is not an article of the government as legal tender. regardless if it is of no value
Kinds of coins the counterfeiting of which is punished 1. Coins of the minor coinage of the Philippines or of the Central Bank of the Philippines.This is the crime of remaking or manufacturing without any authority to do so. That there be false or counterfeited coins (need not be legal tender).
Sigma Rho ( ΣΡ ) reviewers
49
. That in case of uttering such false or counterfeited coins.
* In the crime of counterfeiting. the law is not concerned with the fraud upon the public such that even though the coin is no longer legal tender. In punishing the crime of counterfeiting. imported or uttered such coins. with the further requirement that there must be connivances with the mutilator or importer in case of uttering. Importing or uttering such mutilated coins. with the further requirements that there be intent to damage or to defraud another.Elements and Notes in Criminal Law Book II by RENE CALLANTA
c. That the offender either made.
•
Coin is counterfeit – if it is forged.

but Presidential Decree No. and It has to be a coin. is not committed because they do not collect the precious metal content that is being scraped from the coin. (Defacement. Presidential Decree No.Elements and Notes in Criminal Law Book II by RENE CALLANTA
(2) Mutilation of coins -. intent to mutilate is absent. Questions & Answers 1. so nobody will be defrauded. willful defacement mutilation tearing burning destruction of Central Bank notes and coins
•
• •
Mutilation – to take off part of the metal either by filling it or substituting it for another metal of inferior quality. If it is not legal tender anymore. Is the crime of mutilation committed? Mutilation. There is no expertise involved here. thus. Must be legal tender. Must be intention to mutilate. pile or cut the coin and collect the dust and. In mutilation of coins under the Revised Penal Code.
•
* Mutilation of coins is a crime only if the coin mutilated is legal tender. 2. this will amount to violation of Presidential Decree No. scratching or filling the edges of the coin and the offender gathers the metal dust that has been scraped from the coin. under Presidential Decree No.This refers to the deliberate act of diminishing the proper metal contents of the coin either by scraping. under the Revised Penal Code. 247 will apply. But if the coin is of legal tender.
Article 164
• MULTILATION OF COINS – IMPORTATION AND UTTERANCE:
This has been repealed by PD 247. and the offender minimizes or decreases the precious metal dust content of the coin. The people playing cara y cruz. When the image of Jose Rizal on a five-peso bill is transformed into that of Randy Santiago. An old woman who was a cigarette vendor in Quiapo refused to accept one-centavo coins for payment of the vendee of cigarettes he purchased. Offender gains from the precious metal dust abstracted from the coin. diminishing the intrinsic value of the coin. However.
Requisites of mutilation under the Revised Penal Code (1) (2) (3) Coin mutilated is of legal tender.
Mutilation under the Revised Penal Code is true only to coins. Burning or Destroying Central Bank Notes and Coins)
Under this PD. to diminish by inferior means (to diminish metal contents). b. is there a violation of Presidential Decree No. If the offender does not collect such dust. 247. Tearing. no one will accept it. 247 is violated by such act. 247. * The offender must deliberately reduce the precious metal in the coin. the acts punishable are: a. Foreign notes and coins not included. the offender does nothing but to scrape. However. It cannot be a crime under the Revised Penal Code to mutilate paper bills because the idea of mutilation under the code is collecting the precious metal dust. e. 4. 247? Yes. Mutilation. Deliberate intent arises only when the offender collects the precious metal dust from the mutilated coin. before they throw the coin in the air would rub the money to the sidewalk thereby diminishing the intrinsic value of the coin. mutilation is not limited to coins. c. d. the crime of mutilation is committed. Then came the police who advised her that she
Sigma Rho ( ΣΡ ) reviewers
50
.

Anyone who is in possession of defaced money is the one who is the violator of Presidential Decree No. her act would result in the diminution of the coin in circulation. 247 is not to punish the act of defrauding the public but what is being punished is the act of destruction of money issued by the Central Bank of the Philippines. counterfeited or mutilated by another person. possession 2. 247? She was guilty of violating Presidential Decree No. Was the old woman guilty of violating Presidential Decree No.
Article 165 SELLING OF FALSE OR MUTILATED COIN. Possession of coin. knowledge. 247. 247. Importing of such notes
Sigma Rho ( ΣΡ ) reviewers
51
. • • Possession does not require legal tender in foreign coins Includes constructive possession
* On counterfeiting coins. if the act of mutilating coins does not involve gathering dust like playing cara y cruz.Elements and Notes in Criminal Law Book II by RENE CALLANTA
has no right to refuse since the coins are of legal tender. that is not mutilation under the Revised Penal Code because the offender does not collect the metal dust. 247? He was guilty of arrested for violating of Presidential Decree No. with intent to utter the same. But by rubbing the coins on the sidewalk. WITHOUT CONNIVANCE
• 2 Types a.00 bill to light his cigarette. So. Was he guilty of violating Presidential Decree No. knowing the same to be false or mutilated. and 3. The intention of Presidential Decree No. Actually uttering such false or mutilated coin. it is immaterial whether the coin is legal tender or not because the intention of the law is to put an end to the practice of imitating money and to discourage anyone who might entertain the idea of imitating money (People vs. he also defaces and destroys the coin and that is punishable under Presidential Decree No. Note that persons making bracelets out of some coins violate Presidential Decree No. The primary purpose of Presidential Decree No. knowing that it is false or mutilated. On this. with intent to utter. 247 at the time it was ordained was to stop the practice of people writing at the back or on the edges of the paper bills. such as "wanted: pen pal". A certain customer in a restaurant wanted to show off and used a P 20. 247. 247 because if no one ever picks up the coins. 247. knowledge b. actually uttering. the old woman accepted in her hands the one-centavo coins and then threw it to the face of the vendee and the police. ELEMENTS: 1.
Article 166 FORGING TREASURY OR BANK NOTES – IMPORTING AND UTTERING
• Acts punishable: a. Kong Leon). 5. ELEMENTS: 1. and 2. Forging or falsity of treasury/bank notes or documents payable to bearer b.

checks. b. he connived with the forger or importer. substituting. sweepstakes money
• •
* If the falsification is done on a document that is classified as a government security.
Article 167 COUNTERFEITING. That there be an instrument payable to order or other document of credit not payable to bearer. b. drafts for money. That in case of uttering. treasury notes. Uttering of such false or forged obligations and notes in connivance with forgers and importers
• •
•
FORGING – by giving a treasury or bank note or document payable to bearer/order an appearance of a true and genuine document FALSIFICATION – by erasing. signs contained therein E. words. That he performs any of these acts – 1. c. certificate of indebtedness.
Article 168 ILLEGAL POSSESSION AND USE OF FALSE TREASURY OR BANK NOTES AND OTHER INSTRUMENT OF CREDIT
• ELEMENTS: a. counterfeiting or altering by any means the figures and letters. AND UTTERING INSTRUMENTS NOT PAYABLE TO BEARER
• ELEMENTS : a. then the offender may either have violated Article 171 or 172. That the offender knows that any of those instruments is forged or falsified. On the other hand. bills. national bank notes. c. imported or uttered such instruments. That the offender either forged. IMPORTING.Elements and Notes in Criminal Law Book II by RENE CALLANTA
c. then the crime is punished under Article 166. Act sought to be punished: Knowingly possessing with intent to use any of such forged treasury or bank notes
•
Article 169 FORGERY • How forgery is committed:
a. or 2. falsifying – lotto or sweepstakes ticket. certificate of deposits. using any of such forged or falsified instrument. by giving to a treasury or bank note or any instrument payable to bearer or to order. or any instrument payable to order or other document of credit not payable to bearer is forged or falsified by another person. possessing with intent to use any of such forged or falsified instrument. if it is not a government security. coupons. Attempted estafa through falsification of an obligation or security of the Phil PNB checks not included here – it’s falsification of commercial document under Article 172 Obligation or security includes: bonds. That any treasury or bank note or certificate or other obligation and security payable to bearer. the appearance of a true and genuine document
Sigma Rho ( ΣΡ ) reviewers
52
.g.

The forged instrument and currency note must be given the appearance of a true and genuine document. somebody replaced it with a dollar sign ($). by erasing. the printing was inverted. Not any alteration of a letter. It can only be a consummated forgery if the document which purports to be genuine is given the appearance of a true and genuine document. which is given the same status as legal tender. Falsification of a document by a public officer. An old man. The essence of forgery is giving a document the appearance of a true and genuine document. the word “counterfeiting” is not used when it comes to notes. 247. applied toothache drops and reversed the mimeo paper and pressed it to the paper. cut out a digit from another ticket and pasted it there to match the series of digits corresponding to the winning sweepstakes ticket. 3. At most. Forgery was not committed. the crime committed is forgery.
Sigma Rho ( ΣΡ ) reviewers
53
. however. Instead of the peso sign (P). In a case like this. Was the crime of forgery committed? No. But the alteration is so crude that even a child can notice that the supposed digit is merely superimposed on the digit that was scraped.
Five classes of falsification:
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) Falsification of legislative documents. one could easily see that it is a forgery.Elements and Notes in Criminal Law Book II by RENE CALLANTA
b. scraped it a little and went to a sari-sari store trying to buy a cigarette with that bill. the crime is forgery. After sometime. employee or notary public. Where the currency note.” Counterfeiting refers to money. What he overlooked was that. He cut it out. * When what is being counterfeited is obligation or securities. Falsification of a public or official. the crime is frustrated because he has done all the acts of execution which would bring about the felonious consequence but nevertheless did not result in a consummation for reasons independent of his will. which are in the form of obligations and securities issued by the Philippine government as its own obligations. scraped a digit in a losing sweepstakes ticket. whether coins or bills. Where the alteration is such that nobody would be deceived. He took the reverse side of the P20 bill. it is not possible because by simply looking at the forged document. number. the crime is frustrated
* Forgery under the Revised Penal Code applies to papers. counterfeiting. Falsification of a private document by any person. which under the Revised Penal Code is given a status of money or legal tender. in his desire to earn something. or signs contained therein. Otherwise. it is at most frustrated. figure or design would amount to forgery. it could be seen that it is not genuine. substituting. what is used is “forgery. Questions & Answers 1. that the decision has been criticized. this crime is committed when the figures or words are changed which materially alters the document. altering by any means the figures. it would only be frustrated forgery. He presented this ticket to the Philippine Charity Sweepstakes Office. Falsification of wireless. A person has a twenty-peso bill. or commercial documents by a private individual. obligation or security has been changed to make it appear as one which it purports to be as genuine. he removed it and it was reproduced. • if all acts done but genuine appearance is not given. * Notice that mere change on a document does not amount to this crime . He was apprehended and was prosecuted and convicted of forgery. He applied toothache drops on one side of the bill. the Supreme Court ruled that what was committed was an impossible crime. 2. he removed it and the printing on the twenty-peso bill was reproduced on the mimeo paper. Generally. the Supreme Court of Spain ruled that the crime is frustrated. Note. The crime committed is a violation of Presidential Decree No. Was the crime of forgery committed? The Supreme Court ruled that it was only frustrated forgery because although the offender has performed all the acts of execution. After sometime. He has a mimeograph paper similar in texture to that of the currency note and placed it on top of the twentypeso bill and put some weight on top of the paper. In checks or commercial documents. Was the old man guilty of forgery? NO Because of the impossibility of deceiving whoever would be the person to whom that ticket is presented. letters or words. telegraph and telephone messages. when he placed the bill.

* The words "municipal council" should include the city council or municipal board – Reyes. * Note that forging and falsification are crimes under Forgeries. or telegraph messages. commercial. Distinction between falsification and forgery: Falsification is the commission of any of the eight acts mentioned in Article 171 on legislative (only the act of making alteration). signature or rubric. That the alteration has changed the meaning of the document. b. employee. the crime of falsification cannot be committed in respect thereto. d. 1 but such is not an impediment to conviction under par. Counterfeiting or imitating any handwriting. to each other  (lack of similitude/imitation of a genuine signature will not be a ground for conviction under par. bear some resemblance. Until and unless the writing has attained this quality. spurious or fabricated legislative document. That the offender is a public officer. The writing must be complete in itself and capable of extinguishing an obligation or creating rights or capable of becoming evidence of the facts stated therein. or wireless. c. OR NOTARY OR ECCLESTASTICAL MINISTER
• ELEMENTS: a. the genuine and the forged.
Article 170 FALSIFICATION OF LEGISLATIVE DOCUMENTS
• ELEMENTS : a. The term forgery as used in Article 169 refers to the falsification and counterfeiting of treasury or bank notes or any instruments payable to bearer or to order. That there be an intent to imitate. b. therefore. or an attempt to imitate ii. or private documents. resolution or ordinance enacted or approved or pending approval by the national assembly or any provincial board or municipal council. Requisites: i. That he falsifies a document by committing any of the following acts: 1. If committed on a simulated.
Article 171 FALSIFICATION OF DOCUMENTS BY PUBLIC OFFICER. That these be a bill.
•
Accused must not be a public official entrusted with the custody or possession of such document otherwise Art 171 applies . That he has no proper authority therefor. c.Elements and Notes in Criminal Law Book II by RENE CALLANTA
* The crime of falsification must involve a writing that is a document in the legal sense. public or official. 2)
Sigma Rho ( ΣΡ ) reviewers
54
. it will not be considered as document in the legal sense and. true and authentic legislative document. EMPLOYEE. That the two signatures or handwritings. That the offender (any person) alters the same.
* The falsification must be committed on a genuine. That he takes advantage of his official position. or notary public. the crime is not punished under this article but under Article 171 or 172.

Ex. Making any alteration or intercalation in a genuine document which changes its meaning. That he has a legal obligation to disclose the truth of the facts narrated by him. That the facts narrated by the offender are absolutely false. Altering true dates. This kind of falsification may be committed by omission 5.Elements and Notes in Criminal Law Book II by RENE CALLANTA
2. and ii. the date of the document must be material to the right created or to the obligation that is extinguished. iv. Making untruthful statements in a narration of facts. not a conclusion of law. That such person/s did not in fact so participate in the act or proceeding
4. That the offender makes in a document statements in a narration of facts ii. That there be an alteration (change) or intercalation (insertion) on a document ii. That it was made on a genuine document That the alteration/intercalation has changed the meaning of the document That the change made the document speak something false. or including in such copy a statement contrary to. and iv. 6. Must be on a material matter * For one to be held criminally liable for falsification under paragraph 4. iii. That the perversion or truth in the narration of facts was made with the wrongful intent of injuring a third person  There must be a narration of facts. Requisites: i. that of the genuine original. or different from. 3. falsification through negligence) or
Sigma Rho ( ΣΡ ) reviewers
55
. Requisites: i.
7. That the offender caused it to appear in a document that a person/s participated in an act or a proceeding. Attributing to persons who have participated in an act or proceeding statements other than those in fact made by them. Issuing in an authenticated form a document purporting to be a copy of an original
document when no such original exists. (required by law to be done) and iii. the untruthful statement must be such as to effect the integrity of the document or to change the effects which it would otherwise produce. Causing it to appear that persons have participated in any act or proceeding when they did not in fact so participate. – date must be essential * For falsification to take place under this paragraph. Requisites: i. (if no knowledge. Residence certificates  The person making the narration of facts must be aware of the falsity of the facts narrated by him.  Legal obligation means that there is a law requiring the disclosure of the truth of the facts narrated.

A deed or agreement executed by a person setting forth any disposition or condition wherein rights and obligations may arise.
•
Not necessary that what is falsified is a genuine or real document. it is considered a document. Even totally false documents may be falsified. there must be a law which requires a public officer to issue or to render such document. 25 Phil. entries which are not found on contrary to. 8.
* Writing may be on anything as long as it is a product of the handwriting.
Liability of a private individual in falsification by a public officer when there is conspiracy. a person in authority or notary public has taken part. or rubric out of one of which does not in fact exist
* It does not require that the writing be genuine. if it appears to be genuine. employee or notary public or ecclesiastical minister > Either he has duty to intervene in the preparation of the document or it may be a situation wherein the public officer has official custody of the document. it must first be a public document. the crime of falsification is nevertheless committed.
Sigma Rho ( ΣΡ ) reviewers
56
. enough that it gives an appearance of a genuine article
As long as any of the acts of falsification is committed. The falsification can be done in two ways. Example: A cashier is required to issue an official receipt for the amount he receives. THERE ARE FOUR KINDS OF DOCUMENTS: (1) Public document in the execution of which. Intercalating any instrument or note relative to the issuance thereof in a protocol. It can be a certification purporting to show that the document issued is a copy of the original on record when no such original exists. 324)
•
Persons liable – public officer.
•
So even if the offender is a public officer. if her causes the falsification of a document which is not in his official custody or if the falsification committed by him is not related whatsoever to the performance of his duties.Elements and Notes in Criminal Law Book II by RENE CALLANTA
* The acts of falsification mentioned in this paragraph are committed by a public officer or by a notary public who takes advantage of his official position as custodian of the document. he will still be liable for falsification but definitely not under this Article but under Article 172. It can also refer to a public officer or notary who prepared and retained a copy of the document. The official receipt is a public document which is an official document. handwriting. (genuine document) * In case the offender is an ecclesiastical minister. and (4) Private document in the execution of which only private individuals take part. whether the document is genuine or not. (3) Commercial document or any document recognized by the Code of Commerce or any commercial law. signature or rubric FEIGNING – simulating a signature. It can also be in the form of a certification to the effect that the document on file contains statements or including in the copy issued. or official book. or different from the original genuine document on file. * Public document is broader than the term official document. • There is no crime of attempted or frustrated falsification of public document
* Alteration or changes to make the document speak the truth do not constitute falsification. But not all public documents are official documents. (falsification of documents by a private person)
DOCUMENT: Any written instrument which establishes a right or by which an obligation is
extinguished. registry. Mateo. the act of falsification is committed with respect to any record or document of such character that its falsification may affect the civil status of persons. the crime of falsification may be committed. Even if the writing was through and through false. Before a document may be considered official.
• •
COUNTERFEITING – imitating any handwriting. (2) Official document in the execution of which a public official takes part. To become an official document. (US vs.

(U. the Sandiganbayan shall maintain jurisdiction over the person of the co-accused. Causing it to appear that persons have participated in any act or proceeding when they did not in fact so participated. Attributing to persons who have participated in an act or proceeding statements other than those in fact made by them. 6. Altering true dates. b. and of the public officers. The two offenses can co-exist as they have distinct elements peculiar to their nature as a crime. the written acts or records of acts of the sovereign authority of official bodies and tribunals. When the falsification is committed because it is necessary to
Sigma Rho ( ΣΡ ) reviewers
57
. If the public officer is found guilty. 20 Phil. That he committed any of the acts of falsification enumerated in ART. journals. OFFICIAL. Making untruthful statements in a narration of facts. books. notwithstanding the fact that said co-accused is a private individual. the same liability and penalty shall be imposed on the private individual. OR COMMERCIAL DOCUMENT BY A PRIVATE INDIVIDUAL (par 1)
• ELEMENTS a. vs. official or commercial documents. 379)
Article 172 FALSIFICATION OF PUBLIC. 4. Counterfeiting or imitating any handwriting. when a public officer who holds a position classified as Grade 27 or higher. cash files.
•
Examples of commercial documents – warehouse receipts. the case against him will fall under the jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan. signature or rubric. In the crime of estafa. That the falsification was committed in any public or official or commercial document. What is punished under the law is the violation of public faith and the perversion of the truth as solemnly proclaimed by the nature of the document. it is not necessary that there be present the idea of gain or the intent to injure a third person. judicial and executive. 5. commits a crime in relation to the performance of his official functions. damage or intent to cause damage is not an element. whether they be public official or by private individuals.Elements and Notes in Criminal Law Book II by RENE CALLANTA
Under Republic Act 7975 . bank checks. deposit slips and bank statements. legislative. 2. Sandiganbayan)
•
•
Defense: lack of malice or criminal intent The following writings are public: a. whether of the Philippines or of a foreign country. It is sufficient that the offender committed or performed the acts of falsification as defined and punished under Article 171. ledgers. 171. b. official or commercial document. airway bills.
•
Under this paragraph. damage is not essential. drafts. Making any alteration or intercalation in a genuine document which changes its meaning. Ponce.S. (Sarep vs. 1. c. 3. That the offender is a private individual or a public officer or employee who did not take advantage of his official position. it is presumed
* If the falsification of public. letters of credit and other negotiable instruments There is a complex crime of estafa through falsification of public. If a private person is included in the accusation because of the existence of conspiracy in the commission of the crime . Public records kept in the Philippines.

Two acts must be done by the offender. Damage to one’s honor.
b. reputation or good name is included. • Not necessary that the offender profited or hoped to profit from the falsification
* Falsification of a private document is consummated when such document is actually falsified with the intent to prejudice a third person whether such falsified document is or is not thereafter put to illegal use for which it is intended. 2) He must have performed an independent act which operates to cause damage or prejudice to a third person. 36 Phil. enumerated in art. 146) * What is emphasized at this point is the element of falsification of private document. • Falsification is not a continuing offense
* There is no falsification through reckless imprudence if the document is a private document.
There is a complex crime of falsification of pubic documents through reckless imprudence. • A document falsified as a necessary means to commit another crime must be public. (Lopez vs. 1) He must have performed in the private document the falsification contemplated under Article 171. 171.Elements and Notes in Criminal Law Book II by RENE CALLANTA
commit estafa. Reckless imprudence is incompatible with malicious intent. The same element is necessary to commit the
Sigma Rho ( ΣΡ ) reviewers
58
. damage or intent to cause damage is an indispensable element of the crime. no crime of estafa thru falsification of private document) to a third party or at least the falsification was committed with intent to cause such damage. There must be intent to cause damage or damage is actually caused. what we have is a complex crime defined and punished under Article 48 of the Revised Penal Code. The intention is therefore must be malicious or there is deliberate intent to commit a wrong. official or commercial There is no complex crime of estafa through falsification of a private document because the immediate effect of the latter is the same as that of estafa
•
* If a private document is falsified to cause damage to the offended party. hence. • Falsification by omission
* Mere falsification of a private document is not enough to commit crime under paragraph 2 of Article 172.
That the falsification was committed in any private document (must affect the truth or integrity of the document) That the falsification caused damage (essential element. 172. the crime committed is falsification of a private document.
• • • Cash disbursement vouchers or receipts evidencing payments are not commercial documents A mere blank form of an official document is not in itself a document The possessor of falsified document is presumed to be the author of the falsification
FALSIFICATION UNDER PARAGRAPH 2 OF ART. Remember that in estafa. except those in paragraph 7 and 8. Paras. The third person mentioned herein may include the government. c. OF PRIVATE DOCUMENT
• ELEMENTS : a. Damage is not limited to money or pecuniary prejudice. That the offender committed any of the acts of falsification.

IF the estafa can be committed even without resorting to falsification.
Sigma Rho ( ΣΡ ) reviewers
59
. 1 and 2 of art. the crime is falsification. * There is no complex crime of estafa with falsification because deceit is a common element of both. Criteria to determine whether the crime is estafa only or falsification only : IF the falsification of the private document was essential in the commission of estafa because the falsification. It is either estafa or falsification. estafa becomes the consequence of the crime.
3. such element cannot be divided into the two parts and considered as two separate offenses. 2. estafa can be committed. estafa cannot be committed. That the offender knew that a document was falsified by another person. the falsification is not punishable. the latter being resorted only to facilitate estafa. ( intent to
cause damage not necessary) b. That the false document is embraced in art.
4. • If the estafa was already consummated at the time of the falsification of a private document was committed for the purpose of concealing the estafa. That the false document is embraced in art. One and the same deceit or damage cannot give rise to more than one crime. • • A private document may acquire the character of a public document when it becomes part of an official record and is certified by a public officer duly authorized by law The crime is falsification of public documents even if falsification took place before the private document becomes part of the public records
Examples:
An employee of a private company who punches the bundy clock on behalf on a co-employee is guilty of falsification of a private document. 1 and 2 of art. 172)
• ELEMENTS: a. art. falsification is merely incidental. One who will take the civil service examination for another and makes it appear that he is the examinee is guilty of falsification of a public document. 2. 171 or in any of subdivisions nos.
USE OF FALSIFIED DOCUMENT (par. That the use of the documents caused damage to another or at least was used with intent to cause such damage. 171 or in any subdivisions nos.
3. the main crime is estafa. Use in any other transaction: 1.
* A private document which is falsified to obtain money from offended party is a falsification of private document only. Introducing in a judicial proceeding: 1. That he used such documents (not in judicial proceedings). because as regards the falsification of the private document there was no damage or intent to cause damage. since even without falsification. 172. 3. That he introduced said document in evidence in any judicial proceeding.Elements and Notes in Criminal Law Book II by RENE CALLANTA
crime of falsification of private document. That the offender knew that a document was falsified by another person. Since they have a common element. 172.

Article 173 FALSIFICATION OF WIRELESS. That the accused used such falsified dispatch. So if the falsification of document was done or performed because it was necessary to the use of the same and in the commission of the crime. or telephone message
Falsifying wireless. 2.
Sigma Rho ( ΣΡ ) reviewers
60
. Uttering fictitious.
2. or telephone message
3. 3. the use alone is not a crime. cable. engaged in the service of sending or receiving wireless. That the offender is an officer or employee of the government or an officer or employee of a private corporation.
Rules to observe in the use of a falsified document. That the accused commits any of the following acts: uttering fictitious wireless. But when the falsified document is knowingly introduced in an administrative proceeding. or that the use thereof was with intent to cause such prejudice. TELEGRAPH. what is of the offense. or telephone message. cable. That the accused knew that wireless.Elements and Notes in Criminal Law Book II by RENE CALLANTA
• The user of the falsified document is deemed the author of falsification. Falsification of document is a separate and distinct offense from that of the use of falsified documents. That the use of the falsified dispatch resulted in the prejudice of a third party. punished is the violation of public faith and perversion of truth which the document proclaims. the use alone is not a crime. cable. telegraph. cable. There must be intent to cause damage or damage is actually inflicted. The mere introduction of the forged document is the crime itself. or falsifying wireless. the user had the capacity of falsifying the document Falsification of Private Documents Falsification of Public/Official Documents Prejudice to third party is an element Prejudice to third persons is immaterial. or falsifying wireless.
c. cable or telephone message. telegraph. if: a. Good faith is a defense in falsification of public document. telegraph or telephone message Requisites: a. 1. It is a crime when knowingly introduced in a judicial proceeding even if there is not intent to cause damage to another. Knowingly introducing a falsified document in a judicial proceeding. Using such falsified message Requisites: a. the use is so closely connected in time with the falsification b. or telephone message was falsified by any of the person specified in the first paragraph of art. MESSAGES. telegraph. CABLE. cable. 173. b. That the offender is an officer or employee of the government or an officer or employee of a private corporation. b. telegraph.
-
That the accused commits any of the following acts: uttering fictitious wireless. AND USE OF SAID FALSIFIED MESSAGES
•
AND
TELEPHONE
Acts punishable: 1. or telephone message. wireless. cable or telephone message. telegraph or telephone message Requisites: a. then we may have a complex crime defined and punished under Article 48 of the Revised Penal Code. telegraph.
b. engaged in the service of sending or receiving wireless.

good conduct. Possessing with intent to use the instruments or implements for counterfeiting or falsification made in or introduced into the Philippines by another person • • The implement confiscated need not form a complete set Constructive possession is also punished
OTHER FALSITIES Article 177 USURPATION OF AUTHORITY OR OFFICIAL FUNCTIONS:
• 2 ways of committing the crime: a. Public officer who issued a false certificate of merit of service. good conduct or similar circumstances c. That he used the same. CERTIFCATES OF MERIT OR SERVICE AND THE LIKE:
• Persons liable: a. dies or marks or other instruments or implements for counterfeiting or falsification b. Private individual who falsified a certificate under (1) and (2)
Article 175 USING FALSE CERTIFICATES
• ELEMENTS: a.
Sigma Rho ( ΣΡ ) reviewers
61
. That the offender knew that the certificate was false. By knowingly and falsely representing oneself to be an officer. or similar circumstances. to be liable must be engaged in the service of sending or receiving wireless. in connection with the practice of his profession. agent or representative of any department or agency of the Philippine gov’t or any foreign gov’t. Making or introducing into the Philippines any stamps. issued a false certificate (note: such certificate must refer to the illness or injury of a person) b. b. or a private person had falsified any of said certificates. Physician or surgeon who. and without being lawfully entitled to do so. That a physician or surgeon has issued a false medical certificate. cable and telegraph or telephone message
Article 174 FALSIFICATION OF MEDICAL CERTIFICATES.Elements and Notes in Criminal Law Book II by RENE CALLANTA
• The public officer. c. b. or a public officer has issued a false certificate of merit or service. By performing an act pertaining to any person in authority or public officer of the Phil gov’t or foreign gov’t under the pretense of such official position.
Article 176 MANUFACTURING AND POSSESSION OF INTRUMENTS OR IMPLEMENTS FOR FALSIFICATION:
• Acts punishable: a.

or any agency thereof. Not necessary that he performs an act pertaining to a public officer. To evade the execution of a judgment.
Article 178 USING FICTITIOUS NAME AND CONCEALING TRUE NAME
• ELEMENTS (using fictitious name) : a.
Sigma Rho ( ΣΡ ) reviewers
62
.
Elements 1. or 3. 4. 2. The law cannot refer to other foreign governments as its application may bring us to legal problems which may infringe on constitutional boundaries.
Elements 1. c. surname. To conceal a crime. and maternal name. 2. Signing fictitious name for a passport) * The name of a person is what appears in his birth certificate. agent or representative of any department or agency of the Philippine government or of any foreign government. * If the offender commits the acts of usurpation as contemplated herein. That the offender uses a name other than his real name. Under pretense of official position. That he uses that fictitious name publicly. Offender knowingly and falsely represents himself. As an officer. to the gov’t b. he will not be liable under this article because what is attributed against him as a crime of usurpation is in fact one of the elements of committing rebellion. 2. Without being lawfully entitled to do so. • •
A public officer may also be an offender The act performed without being lawfully entitled to do so must pertain: a. To cause damage to public interest. b. * The elements of false pretense is necessary to commit the crime of usurpation of official function. Any other name which a person publicly applies to himself without authority of law is a fictitious name. to any person in authority c. (ex. and he does it because he is a rebel and pursuant to the crime of rebellion or insurrection or sedition.Elements and Notes in Criminal Law Book II by RENE CALLANTA •
In usurpation of authority: The mere act of knowingly and falsely representing oneself is sufficient. That the purpose of the offender is – 1. to any public office
* Foreign government adverted to in this article refers to public officers duly authorized to perform governmental duties in the Philippines.
•
In usurpation of official functions: It is essential that the offender should have performed an act pertaining to a person in authority Offender performs any act. The name of a person refers to his first name. Pertaining to any person in authority or public officer of the Philippine government or any foreign government. 3.

an exact imitation of a uniform or dress is unnecessary. that the purpose is only to conceal his identity.Elements and Notes in Criminal Law Book II by RENE CALLANTA
• ELEMENTS (concealing true name): a. It is necessary that the uniform or insignia represents an office which carries authority. or with which he was registered in the bureau of immigration upon entry. False testimony in other cases under Article 183. * A person under investigation by the police who gives a false name and false personal circumstances. a colorable resemblance calculated to deceive the common run of people is sufficient. In concealment of true name. His only motive in doing so is to conceal his identity. 2. or other entertainment and in athletic events where the use of pseudonym is a normally accepted practice. 493. That the insignia. badge or emblem of rank of the members of the armed forced of the Philippines or constabulary (now PNP) is punished by Republic Act No. radio. upon being interrogated. respect. Use of Fictitious Name (178) Concealing True Name (178) Element of publicity must be present Publicity not necessary Purpose is to conceal a crime. or influence which the public looks up to. the crime is not committed. uniform or dress pertains to an office not held by the offender or to a class of persons of which he is not a member. 2. is guilty of this crime. and all other personal circumstances. 142 (Regulating the Use of Aliases) No person shall use any name different from the one with which he was registered at birth in the office of the local civil registry.
b. That the offender makes use of insignia. the offender presents himself before the public with another name.
* The wearing of insignia. That said insignia. or to cause damage
Commonwealth Act No. television.
THREE FORMS OF FALSE TESTIMONY
1.
Article 179 ILLEGAL USE OF UNIFORM OR INSIGNIA
• ELEMENTS: a. to evade the Purpose is to conceal identity execution of a judgement.
> So also. b.
Sigma Rho ( ΣΡ ) reviewers
63
. cinema. In the use of fictitious name. uniform or dress. or such substitute name as may have been authorized by a competent court. False testimony in criminal cases under Article 180 and 181. False testimony in civil case under Article 182. dignity. the deception is done momentarily. * When the uniform or insignia is used to emphasize the pageantry of a play or drama or in moving picture films. that the offender conceals – 1. * What the offender does to violate or commit this act is for him to conceal his true name and other personal circumstances. or insignia of a non-existing office or establishment is not a crime. his true name. just enough to conceal the name of the offender. * The wearing of a uniform. Exception: Pseudonym solely for literary. 3. uniform or dress is used publicly and improperly. c.

since it is punished not because of the effect it produces. That the offender testifies falsely under oath against the defendant therein.
2. (People vs. can’t be committed through negligence.Elements and Notes in Criminal Law Book II by RENE CALLANTA
False testimony. testimony need not influence the acquittal The false
Sigma Rho ( ΣΡ ) reviewers
64
. the crime of false testimony is still committed. In a criminal case. 3. In favor of the defendant. That the offender who gives false testimony knows that it is false. Reyes) • Penalty is dependent upon sentence imposed on the defendant
Article 181 FALSE TESTIMONY IN FAVOR OF DEFENDANT in a criminal case: Elements:
1. False testimony by negative statement is in favor of the defendant False testimony need not in fact benefit the defendant A statement of a mere opinion is not punishable Conviction or acquittal is not necessary (final judgement is not necessary). 2. •
• •
Requires criminal intent. b. but because of its tendency to favor the accused. Need not impute guilt upon the accused The defendant must at least be sentenced to a correctional penalty or a fine or must have been acquitted The witness who gave false testimony is liable even if the court did not consider his testimony
* The probative value of the testimonial evidence is subject to the rules of evidence. no crime is committed. If the false testimony is due to honest mistake or error or there was good faith in making the false testimony. But whether the testimony is credible or not or whether it is appreciated or not in the context that the false witness wanted it to be. or to alter essentially the truth. That there be a criminal proceeding. • • • • A person gives false testimony. 1.
Article 180 FALSE TESTIMONY AGAINST A DEFENDANT
• ELEMENTS: a. It cannot be committed through reckless imprudence because false testimony requires criminal intent or intent to violate the law is an essential element of the crime. That the defendant against whom the false testimony is given is either acquitted or convicted in a final judgment (prescriptive period starts at this point)
d. It may not be considered at all by the judge. defined It is the declaration under oath of a witness in a judicial proceeding which is contrary to what is true. Nature of the crime of false testimony. c. or to deny the same.

immaterial whether statement or 4. Given in a judicial proceeding. That the testimony must relate to the issues presented in said case. law. Amount involved is not material. b. That the sworn statement or affidavit containing the falsity is required by law. c. It is always material in criminal cases. That the testimony must be malicious and given with an intent to affect the issues presented in the said case
Not applicable when testimony given in a special proceeding (in this case. he is not liable. 3. e. 2. Statement or testimony is required by 2. Solemn affirmation: refers to non-judicial proceedings and affidavits A false affidavit to a criminal complaint may give rise to perjury
• •
•
Sigma Rho ( ΣΡ ) reviewers
65
. and d. That an accused made a statement under oath or made an affidavit upon a material matter. Non-judicial proceedings. by falsely testifying under oath b.Elements and Notes in Criminal Law Book II by RENE CALLANTA
• A defendant who voluntarily goes up on the witness stand and falsely imputes the offense to another person the commission of the offense is liable under this article. by making a false statement Subornation of perjury: procures another to swear falsely.
Article183 FALSE TESTIMONY IN OTHER CASES AND PERJURY IN SOLEMN AFFIRMATION
ELEMENTS: a. • • ELEMENTS: That the testimony must be given in a civil case. That the statement or affidavit was made before a competent officer. That the testimony must be false. 3. d. the accused made a willful and deliberate assertion of a falsehood. c. • 2 ways of committing perjury: a. That in that statement or affidavit. testimony is favorable or not to the accused. 4. Testimony need not be required by law. 1. b. Amount involved in civil cases is material. authorized to receive and administer oath. the crime is perjury) Basis of penalty: amount involved in the civil case
•
Distinctions between perjury and false testimony: PERJURY FALSE TESTIMONY 1. If he merely denies the commission of the offense. Basis of penalty: gravity of the felony charged against the defendant
•
Article 182 FALSE TESTIMONY IN CIVIL CASES
a. That the false testimony must be given by the defendant knowing the same to be false.

Capistrano. then good faith or lack of malice is a good defense when one is indicted for the crime of perjury.
•
A “competent person authorized to administer an oath” means a person who has a right to inquire into the questions presented to him upon matters under his jurisdiction
* There is no perjury if the accused signed and swore the statement before a person not authorized to administer oath (People vs. 902) • A matter is material when it is directed to prove a fact in issue
* The test of materiality is whether a false statement can influence the court (People vs. may give rise to the crime of perjury because false testimony in judicial proceedings contemplates an actual trial where a judgment of conviction or acquittal is rendered A person who knowingly and willfully procures another to swear falsely commits subornation of perjury and the witness suborned does testify under circumstances rendering him guilty of perjury. or an affidavit of good moral character to take the bar examination. there is no Perjury considering the phrases “oath in cases in which the law so requires” in Article 183. 191 SCRA 86) • • Perjury is an offense which covers false oaths other than those taken in the course of judicial proceedings False testimony before the justice of the peace during the P. People. Bella David). there is no perjury committed through reckless imprudence or simple negligence under Article 365. the crime committed is perjury. it is not required that the offender asserts a falsehood on a material matter. which is the willful and corrupt assertion of a falsehood.
•
There is no perjury through negligence or imprudence since the assertion of falsehood must be willful and deliberate
* Because of the nature of perjury. the witness must testify or assert a fact on a material matter with a full knowledge that the information given is essentially contrary to the truth. In false testimony. as long as it is made for a legal purpose.
Sigma Rho ( ΣΡ ) reviewers
66
. (People vs.I. it is sufficient
* If there is no requirement of law to place the statement or testimony under oath. the crime committed is false testimony. It is enough that he testifies falsely with deliberate intent. If one testifies falsely in a non-judicial proceeding. Since admittedly perjury can only be committed by means of dolo. (Diaz vs.
•
Even if there is no law requiring the statement to be made under oath. the crime of perjury is not committed. * The affidavit or sworn statement must be required by law like affidavit of adverse claim to protect one’s interest on real property. 40 Phil. Bnazil). even if the allegations are false.Elements and Notes in Criminal Law Book II by RENE CALLANTA
* Two contradictory sworn statements are not sufficient to convict the affiant for the crime of perjury. In perjury. Perjury When one testifies falsely before the court. The false testimony is not in a judicial proceeding
•
•
False testimony vs. There must be evidence to show which is false. So if the affidavit was made but the same is not required by law. Material matter means the main fact which is the subject or object of the inquiry. The same must be established or proved from sources other than the two contradictory statements.

it is a crime defined and punished under the Revised Penal Code. So if the offeror. is perjury.
* The offender in this article knows that the witness to be presented is a false witness or that the witness will lie while testifying.
Sigma Rho ( ΣΡ ) reviewers
67
. knowing the testimony is given by the witness to be false. • ELEMENTS OF ATTEMPTING TO CAUSE BIDDERS TO STAY AWAY: a That there be a public auction. The witness is able to testify and the offender. The applicable article will be Article 180. Nevertheless. aside from being such. b That the accused solicited any gift or a promise from any of the bidders. nevertheless offers the same in evidence. The offenders in this case will be charged with perjury. The proceedings is either judicial or official.Elements and Notes in Criminal Law Book II by RENE CALLANTA Article 184 OFFERING FALSE TESTIMONY IN EVIDENCE
• ELEMENTS: a That the offender offered in evidence a false witness or false testimony. the inducer as principal by inducement and the induced party as the principal by direct participation. is also the person responsible in inducing or convincing the false witness to lie. Article 184 will not apply. There is a formal offer of testimonial evidence in the proceedings. or any other artifice. Padol. promises. testifies falsely. or 183 as the case may be. * It is for this reason that subornation of perjury is no longer treated as a specific felony with a separate article of its own. (People vs. The crime committed by one who induces another to testify falsely and the person who agrees and in conspiracy with the inducer. The mere offer is sufficient. He knows that the witness is false and yet he asks him to testify and thereafter offers the testimony in evidence. 365)
FRAUDS Article 185 MACHINATIONS IN PUBLIC AUCTION
• ELEMENTS: a That there be a public auction. gifts. b c • That he knew the witness or the testimony was false. 182. 181. 66 Phil.
d That the accused had the intent to cause the reduction of the price of the thing auctioned.
The false witness need not be convicted of false testimony. In this case. d That the accused had the intent to cause the reduction of the price of the thing auctioned. b c That the accused attempted to cause the bidders to stay away from that public auction That it was done by threats.
c That such gifts or promise was the consideration for his refraining from taking part in that public auction. the person offering the false testimony must have nothing to do in the making of the false testimony. That the offer was made in a judicial or official proceeding.

Purpose is to make transactions prejudicial to lawful commerce or to increase the market price of any merchandise or object of commerce manufactured. processor or importer of any merchandise or object of commerce. Entering into any contract or agreement or taking part in any conspiracy or combination in the form of a trust or otherwise. conspiring or agreeing with any person to make transactions prejudicial to lawful commerce or to increase the market price of the merchandise. By entering into a contract or agreement or taking part in any conspiracy or
combination in the form of a trust or otherwise. processor d. or by combining with any other person or persons to monopolize said merchandise or object. Manufacturer. producer c. 3.
b. To restrain free competition in the market
d. 2. 3. Combination to prevent free competition in the market Elements 1. conspiring c. Combines. processed. Manufacturer. combining b. In order to alter the prices thereof by spreading false rumors or making use of any other artifice. By monopolizing any merchandise or object of trade or commerce. conspires or agrees with any person. importer Crime is committed by: a. produced. agreeing with another person The purpose is: a. producer.Elements and Notes in Criminal Law Book II by RENE CALLANTA
Article 186 MONOPOLIES AND COMBINATIONS IN RESTRAINT OF TRADE:
• Acts punished: a. 2. in restraint of trade or commerce or prevent by artificial means free competition in the market (It is enough that initial steps are taken. manufacturer b. 2. Monopoly to restrain free competition in the market Elements 1. assembled or imported into the Philippines. It is not necessary that there be actual restraint of trade) c.
•
Person/s liable: a. Elements 1. In restraint of trade or commerce or to prevent by artificial means free competition in the market. to make transactions prejudicial to lawful commerce
•
•
Sigma Rho ( ΣΡ ) reviewers
68
. producer or processor or importer combining.

the existence of such fact may be seriously considered as a defense. t/m or service mark of one person. lithographing or reproducing t/n. b That the stamps. for the t/n or t/m of the real manufacturer or dealer upon any article of commerce and (b) selling the same. the crime committed is punished under Article
Sigma Rho ( ΣΡ ) reviewers
69
. as in the case of locally manufactured goods. director/manager – who willingly permitted or failed to prevent commission of above offense Aggravated if items are: a. brand.Elements and Notes in Criminal Law Book II by RENE CALLANTA
b. brands. or marks or those articles or merchandise fails to indicate the actual fineness or quality of said metals or alloys.
Article 188 SUBSTITUTING – ALTERING TRADE-MARK.
•
If a particular person is defrauded by the offender. agent/representative c. food substance b. TRADENAME. * What the law punishes herein is the selling of misbranded goods made of gold. b c d By selling or by offering for sale such article of commerce. the crime committed is undoubtedly estafa as far as the particular person is concerned. dishonesty is an essential element of the crime. OR SERVICE MARK
• Acts punishable: a By (a) substituting the trade name (t/n) or trademark (t/m) of some other manufacturer or dealer or a colorable imitation thereof. But if the falsely mislabeled goods are displayed in a store and offered for sale to the public in general. Therefore. to enable another person to fraudulently use the same. by altering the label. SILVER. goods of prime necessity
•
Article 187 IMPORTATION AND DISPOSITION OF FALSELY MARKED ARTICLES OR MERCHANDISE MADE OF GOLD. assembled or imported into the Phil • Also liable as principals: a. to increase the market price of any merchandise or object of commerce manufactured. in the sale or advertising of services By printing. sells or disposes of any of those articles or merchandise. knowing that the t/n or t/m has been fraudulently used By using or substituting the service mark of some other person. motor fuel or lubricants c. are made to appear as imported articles and sold to a particular person. which the offender. it is important to establish that the offender knows the fact that the imported merchandise fails to indicate the actual fineness or quality of the precious metal. knowing the fraudulent purpose for which it is to be used. or a colorable imitation of such marks. * To be criminally liable. Hence. or a colorable limitation thereof. corporation/association b. OR OTHER PRECIOUS METALS OR THEIR ALLOYS
• ELEMENTS: a That the offender imports. or mark fails to indicate the actual fineness or quality of the metals or alloys. c That the offender knows that the said stamp. produced. silver and other precious metals. If the importer has no expertise on the matter such that he has no way of knowing how the fraud was committed. it must be shown that the seller knows that the merchandise is misbranded. processed.

unfair competition is defined as follows: It consists in employing deception or any other means contrary to good faith by which any person shall pass off the goods manufactured by him or in which he deals. who has established a good name or good will in the mind of the public because of the quality of the merchandise manufactured by him. By labeling his product with the trademark or trade name of said manufacturer. TRADEMARK SERVICE MARK. vs. Article 188 is already committed even if no customer comes to buy any of the goods on display. FRAUDULENT DESIGNATION OF ORIGIN. If the fraud is employed against the public.
c d
* Under Republic Act No. if the deception is isolated and is confined to a particular person or group of persons. 221)
* For unfair competition to take place. paragraph 2. he profits from the goodwill of another. * The true test of unfair competition is whether certain goods have been clothed with an appearance which is likely to deceive the ordinary purchaser exercising ordinary care. AND FALSE DESCRIPTION
• Acts punished: a Unfair competition by selling his goods. 7 Phil.Elements and Notes in Criminal Law Book II by RENE CALLANTA
188. • Must not be another manufacturer otherwise unfair competition
* Take note that after making the substitution the goods are displayed in the store or market for sale. t/m or service mark. or his business. or in the (b) wrapping of their packages. it must be the manufacturer of the goods who will cloth or label his goods with the trade name or trademark of another manufacturer.
ELEMENTS: a That the offender gives his goods the general appearance of the goods of another manufacturer or dealer b That the general appearance is shown in the (a) goods themselves.
Article 189 UNFAIR COMPETITION. or services for those of the one having established goodwill. or any false description or representation. Manuel. (U. and (b) selling such goods or services
c
•
Fraudulent registration by procuring fraudulently from the patent office the registration of t/m. That there is actual intent to deceive the public or defraud a competitor. false description by (a) affixing to his goods or
using in connection with his services a false designation of origin. FRAUDULENT REGISTRATION OF TRADENAME.
Sigma Rho ( ΣΡ ) reviewers
70
. Article 188 is violated. estafa is committed. So. Section 29. or in the (c) device or words therein.S. or in (d) any other feature of their appearance That the offender offers to sell or sells those goods or gives other persons a chance or opportunity to do the same with a like purpose. giving them the general appearance of the goods of another manufacturer or dealer
b Fraudulent designation of origin. The imitator is also a manufacturer of the same kind of product but of inferior quality. The mere offer for sale to the public consummates the crime. or committing any acts calculated to produce such result. * The pendency of the administrative aspect of the case is not a prejudicial question in the resolution of the criminal case. 166.

Elements and Notes in Criminal Law Book II by RENE CALLANTA
* If the labeling or clothing of the goods is not done by another manufacturer, the crime committed is not unfair competition but substitution of trademark or trade name under Article 188.
* When the honorable Supreme Court declared that unfair competition is broader and more inclusive than infringement of trade name or trademark. In infringement of trade name or trademark, the offended party has a peculiar symbol or mark on his goods which is considered a property right which must therefore be protected. In unfair competition, the offended party has identified in the mind of the public the goods he manufactures to distinguish it from the goods of the other manufacturers. In infringement of trade name or trademark, the offender uses the trade name or trademark of another in selling his goods, while in unfair competition, the offender gives his goods the general appearance of the goods of another manufacturer and sells the same to the public. (E. Spinner & Co. vs. New Hesslein Corp., 54 Phil. 224)

TITLE FIVE CRIMES RELATED TO OPIUM AND OTHER PROHIBITED DRUGS (190-194)

DRUG SYNDICATE – any organized group of two(2) or more persons forming or joining together with the intention of committing any offense prescribed under the act. PLANTING OF EVIDENCE – the willful act by any person of maliciously and surreptitiously inserting, placing, adding or attaching directly or indirectly, through any overt or covert act, whatever quantity of any dangerous drug and/or controlled precursor and essential chemical in the person, house, effects, or in the immediate vicinity of an innocent individual for the purpose of implicating, incriminating or imputing the commission of any violation of this Act. P D E A – Philippine Drug Enforcement Unit • Importation of prohibited/regulated drugs. PENALTY : Life to death & fine of 500,000 to 10 million regardless of the Quantity purity involved MAXIMUM PENALTY : 1) Use of diplomatic Passport 2) Financier • and

- NOT BAILABLE PENALTY : Life to death & fine of 500,000 to 10 million regardless of the Quantity purity involved ( includes BROKER ) Qualifying Circumstances – and

Sigma Rho ( ΣΡ ) reviewers

71

Elements and Notes in Criminal Law Book II by RENE CALLANTA
1) if the victim of the offense is a minor or should a prohibited/regulated drug involve in any offense under this section be the proximate cause of the death of a victim thereof, the maximum penalty herein shall be imposed. 2) Financier 3) Sale made within 100m from school • Maintenance of a den, dive, or resort for prohibited/regulated drug users. ** Property escheated in favor of the government Qualifying Circumstance – where a prohibited/regulated drug is administered, delivered, or sold to a minor who is allowed to use the same in such place, or should a prohibited drug be the proximate cause of the death of the person using the same in such den, dive or resort, the maximum of the penalty shall be imposed. Manufacture of prohibited/regulated drugs. Possession of prohibited/regulated drugs.

• •

PENALTY : a. Life to death & fine of 500,000 to 10 million

10 gms. Opium, morphine, heroine, cocaine, marijuana resin and Ecstasy. 50 gms. Shabu 500 gms. Marijuana b. Life Imprisonment and a fine of P400,000.00-P500,000.00 10-50 gms. Shabu c. 20 years to Life and a fine of 400,000.00-500,000.00 5-10 gms. Shabu d. 12 – 20 years and a fine of 300,000.00-400,000.00 Less than 5 gms. Of any dangerous drugs
Possession of paraphernalia

6 mos. – 4 yrs. & fine of 10,000 – 50,000 Use of Dangerous Drugs – A person apprehended or arrested, who is found to be positive for use of any dangerous drug, after a confirmatory test, shall be imposed a penalty of a minimum of six (6) months rehabilitation in a government center for the first offense, subject to the provisions of Article VIII of this Act. If apprehended using any dangerous drug act for the second time, he/she shall suffer the penalty of imprisonment ranging from six (6) years and one (1) day to twelve(12) years and a fine ranging from Fifty thousand pesos (P50,000.00) to Two hundred thousand pesos (P200,000.00); Provided, That this section shall not be applicable where the person tested is also found to have in his/her possession such quantity of any dangerous drug provided for under Section 11 of this Act, in which case the provisions stated therein shall apply.
Cultivation of plants which are sources of prohibited drugs.

Penalty - Life to death and a fine of P500,000.00 to P10 Million a Note: The land/portions thereof and/or greenhouses in which any of the said plants is
cultivated or cultured shall be confiscated and escheated to the State, unless the owner thereof can prove that he did not know of such cultivation or culture despite the exercise of due diligence on his part.

b Qualifying Circumstance –

Sigma Rho ( ΣΡ ) reviewers

72

Elements and Notes in Criminal Law Book II by RENE CALLANTA
1. If the land involved is part of the public domain, the maximum of the penalty herein provided shall be imposed. 2. Maximum penalty imposed on financier Failure to keep records of prescription, sales, purchases, acquisitions and/or deliveries of prohibited/regulated drugs Persons liable: Pharmacist, Physician, Dentist, Veterinarian, Manufacturer, Wholesaler, Importer, Distributor, Dealer, Retailer Unlawful prescription of prohibited/regulated drugs

Penalty – life to death and a fine of P500,000 to P10 Million
Unnecessary prescription of prohibited/regulated drugs

Penalty – 12 to 20 years and fine of P100,000 to P500,000 plus revocation of license
Persons Liable: Physician or dentist who shall prescribe any prohibited/regulated drug for any person whose physical/physiological condition does not require the use of thereof.

Confiscation and forfeiture of the proceeds or instruments of the unlawful act, including the properties of the proceeds derived from the illegal trafficking of dangerous drugs. Forfeited infavor of the government After the conviction in the Regional Trial Court in the appropriate criminal case filed, the Court shall immediately schedule a hearing for the confiscation and forfeiture of all the proceeds of the offense and all the assets and properties of the accused either owned or held by him or in the name of some other persons if the same shall be found to be manifestly out of proportion of his/her income; Provided, however, That if the forfeited property is a vehicle, the same shall be auctioned off not later than five (5) days upon order of confiscation or forfeiture. During the pendency of the case in the Regional Trial Court, no property, or income derived therefrom, which may be confiscated and forfeited, shall be disposed, alienated or transferred and the same shall be in custodia legis and no bond shall be admitted for the release of the same. Custody and disposition of confiscated, seized and/or surrendered dangerous drugs PDEA in charge and custody for proper disposition Procedure in Disposal 1. Apprehending team immediately after seizure shall make physical inventory and photograph the seized drugs in the presence of the accused or his counsel, a representative of the media and DOJ and any elected public official who shall sign the copies of the inventory. 2. Within 24 hours upon confiscation/seizure of dangerous drugs, such drug shall be submitted to the PDEA forensic laboratory for a qualitative and quantitative examination. 3. Certification of the forensic examination results shall be issued within 24 hours. 4. After the filing of the criminal case, the proper court shall conduct and ocular inspection within 72 hours of the confiscated, seized and/or surrendered dangerous drugs. 5. After ocular inspection by the court, PDEA shall destroy or burn the confiscated, seized and/or surrendered dangerous drugs within 24 hours in the presence of the accused or his counsel, representative of the media and the DOJ, civil society groups and any elected public officer.

Sigma Rho ( ΣΡ ) reviewers

73

Elements and Notes in Criminal Law Book II by RENE CALLANTA 6. PDEA shall issue a certification of such destruction and samples of the dangerous drugs shall be submitted to the court. Plea-Bargaining Any person charged under any commission of this act regardless of the imposable penalty shall not be allowed to avail of the provision on plea-bargaining. Probation Law Any person convicted for drug trafficking regardless of the penalty imposed cannot avail of the privilege granted by the probation law. Qualifying Aggravating Circumstance A positive finding for the use of dangerous drugs shall be a qualifying aggravating circumstance in the commission of a crime by an offender and the application of the penalty provided for in the RPC.
Possession of opium pipe, equipment, apparatus or any paraphernalia fit or intended for smoking, consuming, administering, injecting, ingesting, or otherwise using opium or any other prohibited drug, shall be prima facie evidence that the possessor has smoked, consumed, administered to himself, injected or used a prohibited drug. Attempt and conspiracy to commit the following offenses: a Importation of dangerous drugs b c d e • Sale, administration, delivery, distribution and transportation of dangerous drugs Maintenance of a den, dive or resort for prohibited drugs Manufacture of dangerous drugs Cultivation or culture of plants which are sources of prohibited drugs

Other persons liable: a If the violation of the Act is committed by a partnership, corporation, association or any judicial person, the partner, president, director, or manager who consents to or knowingly tolerates such violation shall be held criminally liable as co-principal. Partner, president, director, manager, officer or stockholder, who knowingly authorizes, tolerates, or consents to the use of a vehicle, vessel, or aircraft as an instrument in the importation, sale, delivery, distribution or transportation of dangerous drugs, or to the use of their equipment, machines or other instruments in the manufacture of any dangerous drugs, if such vehicle, vessel, aircraft, equipment, or other instrument, is owned or under the control and supervision of the partnership, corporation, association or judicial entity to which they are affiliated.

b

Criminal liability of a public officer or employee for misappropriation, misapplication or failure to account for the confiscated, seized and/or surrendered dangerous drugs Penalty - life to death and a fine of P500,000.00 to P10 Million in addition to absolute perpetual disqualification from any public office. Any elective local or national official found to have benefited from the proceeds of the trafficking of dangerous drugs or have received any financial or material contributions from persons found guilty of drug trafficking dangerous drugs, shall be removed from office and perpetually disqualified from holding any elective or appointive positions in the government. Planting of Evidence Any person who is found guilty of planting any dangerous drug regardless of the quantity and purity, shall suffer the penalty of death.

Sigma Rho ( ΣΡ ) reviewers

74

of his parent guardian or relative may.000. guardian or relative within the 4th civil degree of consanguinity or affinity. All candidates for public office whether appointed or elected both in the national or local government shall undergo a mandatory drug test. Upon application of the Board.mandatory 2.
Sigma Rho ( ΣΡ ) reviewers
75
. Applicants for driver’s license . (Applicable only to those liable for use of dangerous drugs and not to possession and sale) b. police and other law enforcement agencies – annual mandatory 6. Any teacher or school employee who discovers or finds that any person in the school or within its immediate vicinity is violating this Act shall have the duty to report the violation to the school head or supervisor who shall. after hearing. Issuance of False or fraudulent drug test results (whether willfully or through gross negligence) Penalty – 6 to 12 years and fine P100. he may submit himself for confinement within 1 week from the date of his escape. arrest.
a. Applicants for firearms license and for permit to carry . the Court shall issue an order for recommitment if the drug dependent does not resubmit himself for confinement or if he is not surrendered for recommitment. in turn. or cause the apprehension or arrest of any person who shall violate any of the said provision.mandatory 3. report the matter to the proper authorities. Officers and members of the military. supervisors or teachers. Voluntary submission of a drug dependent to confinement. treatment and rehabilitation by the drug dependent himself or through his parent. are vested with the power to apprehend. Officers and employees of private and public offices – random (employer shall shoulder expenses) Any officer or employee found positive for use of dangerous drug shall be dealt with administratively which shall be a ground for suspension or termination subject to Art. or beyond such immediate vicinity if they are in attendance in any school or class function in their official capacity as school heads. within the same period surrender him for confinement. 5. Failure to report in either case shall. supervisors and teachers shall be deemed to be persons in authority and. Should the drug dependent escape from the center. b. c.Elements and Notes in Criminal Law Book II by RENE CALLANTA
Drug Testing 1. in a center and compliance with such conditions therefor as the Dangerous Drugs Board may prescribe shall exempt from criminal liability for possession or use of the prohibited/regulated drug. all school heads. III.00 to P500.000. constitute sufficient cause for disciplinary action. 282 of the Labor Code and pertinent provisions of the Civil Service Law. NOTE: They shall be considered as persons in authority if they are in the school or
within its immediate vicinity. All persons charged before the prosecutor’s office with a criminal offense having an impossible penalty of imprisonment of not less than six (6) years and one (1) day shall have to undergo a mandatory drug test 7. Rules regarding rehabilitation of drug dependents
Voluntary submission a. Students of secondary and tertiary schools – random (school shall shoulder expenses) 4.00 Additional penalty – revocation of license to practice and closure of the drug testing center II. as such. For the purpose of enforcing the provisions of this Act.

he shall be prosecuted for such violation. court shall pronounce judgment of conviction and he shall serve sentence. Compulsory submission If a person charged with an offense where the imposable penalty is imprisonment of not more than six (6) years and one (1) day. the fiscal or court as the case may be. The number of court designated in each judicial region shall be based on population and the number of cases pending in their respective jurisdiction. Jurisdiction – The Supreme Court shall designate special courts from among the existing Regional Trial Court in each judicial region to exclusively try and hear cases involving violations of this Act. Requisites of suspension of sentence for first offense in a minor: 1. shall suspend all further proceedings and transmit records of the case to the Board. f.  Sentence shall be deferred and the accused shall be placed on probation under the supervision of the Board. He has not been previously convicted of violating any provision of this Act or of the RPC or placed on probation. the penalty thereof shall be deemed to have been served in the center upon his release therefrom. to be a drug dependent. h. If accused is a minor (under 18 years of age at the time of the commission of the offense but not more than 21 years of age when the judgement should have been promulgated. and is found by the prosecutor or by the court. g. The DOJ shall designate special prosecutors to exclusively handle cases involving violations of this Act.Elements and Notes in Criminal Law Book II by RENE CALLANTA
d. If. After his rehabilitation. the corresponding information shall be filed by the proper prosecutor within 48 hours from the receipt of the records of the case. The preliminary investigation of cases filed under this Act shall be terminated within a period of thirty (30) days from the date of their filing. at any stage of the proceedings. When the preliminary investigation is conducted by a public prosecutor and a probable cause is established. subsequent to such recommitment. Sigma Rho ( ΣΡ ) reviewers
76
. e. indicate that he shall be given full credit for the period he was confined in the center. shall suspend all further proceedings and transmit copies of the record of the case to the Board. Jurisdiction Over Dangerous Drug Cases
Section 90. 2. NOTE: When the offense is use of dangerous drugs and the accused is not a recidivist. If a person charged with an offense is found by the fiscal or by the Court at any stage of the proceedings.  If accused did not violate conditions of probation. The period of prescription of the offense charged shall not run during the time that the respondent/accused is under detention or confinement in a center. he shall no longer be exempt from criminal liability for the use or possession of any dangerous drug. the corresponding information shall be filed in court within 24 hours from the termination of the investigation. to be a drug dependent. the prosecutor of the court as the case may be. he should escape again. In case of conviction. if the accused is certified by the treatment and rehabilitation center to have maintained good behavior.  In case of violation of conditions of pardon. the judgement shall. If the preliminary investigation is conducted by a judge and a probable cause is found to exist. case shall be dismissed upon expiration of the designated period.

involving violations of this Act.00 but not more than P50. should he/she fail to notify the court of such order to transfer or re-assign. perpetual absolute disqualification from public office. after due notice. to appear as a witness for the prosecution in any proceedings. without any valid reason.
a Buy Bust Operation – no law or rule to require policemen to adopt a uniform way of
identifying BUY MONEY (P v.Elements and Notes in Criminal Law Book II by RENE CALLANTA Section 91. fails or refuses intentionally or negligently. Aranda)
4. special aggravating circumstance if a crime has been committed
while the accused was high on drugs (P v.00.000. Provided.00 but not more than P50. If prosecution can prove the crime without presenting the informer or asset – not
necessary because their testimonies are merely corroborative. Angelito Manalo – burden of proving the authority to possess shabu is a
matter of defense
Sigma Rho ( ΣΡ ) reviewers
77
. That his/her immediate superior shall notify the court where the case is pending of the order of transfer or re-assign. The immediate superior of a member of the law enforcement agency or any other government employee mentioned in the preceding paragraph shall be penalized with imprisonment of not less than two (2) months and one (1) day but not more than six (6) years and a fine of not less than P10. Responsibility and Liability of Law Enforcement Agencies and Other Government Officials and Employees Testifying as Prosecution Witnesses in Dangerous Drugs Cases – Any member of law enforcement agencies or any other government official and employees who. Prosecution and punishment under this Section shall be without prejudice to any liability for violation of any existing law. perpetual absolute disqualification from public office if despite due notice to them and to the witness concerned. P v. the burden to prove that the accused is not aware that drugs are prohibited falls on the defense (P v. inexcusable neglect. Provided further. through patent laxity. unreasonable delay or deliberately causes the unsuccessful prosecution and/or dismissal ranging from 12 years and 1 day to 20 years without prejudice to his/her prosecution under the pertinent provisions of the Revised Penal Code.000 and in addition.000.
Section 92. Poseur buyer – it depends on whether the prosecution can prove the crime without their testimonies (P v. the concerned member of the law enforcement agency or government employee may be transferred or re-assigned for compelling reasons. . Under the RA. in addition to the administrative liability he/she may be meted out by his/her immediate superior and/or appropriate body.Any government officer or employee tasked with the prosecution of drug-related cases under this Act. That his/her immediate superior shall be penalized with imprisonment of not less than two (2) months and one (1) day but not less than six (6) years and a fine of not less than P10. Rosalinda Ramos)
2. But the moment the fact of sale or delivery is proved by prosecution. shall be punished with imprisonment of not less than twelve (12) years and one (1) day to 20 years and a fine of not less than P500.000. Abedes) b Absence of ultraviolet powder is not fatal in the prosecution Transportation/importation of MJ – immaterial whether there may or may not be a distinction for the MJ Distinguish Entrapment and Instigation:
c
d
1. Delay and Bungling in the Prosecution of Drug Cases.00 and in addition. Anthony Belgar)
3.000. who. However. The member of the law enforcement agency or any other government employee mentioned in the preceding paragraphs shall not be transferred or re-assigned to any other territorial jurisdiction during the pendency of the case in court. the former does not exert reasonable effort to present the latter to the court. within 24 hours from its approval. Delivery or Sale of Prohibited Drugs – the accused must be aware that what he is
selling or delivering was prohibited drug.

6. 195). Hilario Moscaling – court may take judicial notice of the word “shabu” 6. 197). obscene publications and exhibitions (Art. 2. Criminal liabilities of a policeman who sold the drugs confiscated from a pusher :
violation of RA 9165 and malversation under RPC. Romeo Macara)
g Possession – constructive or actual – not necessary to adduce the marked money as h Separate crimes – sale/possession of MJ found in his possession after he was frisked
but he can’t be convicted for possession of MJ that he sold
i
If victim is minor or drug is proximate cause of death – max penalty is imposed
1.Elements and Notes in Criminal Law Book II by RENE CALLANTA 5. 7. Betting in sport contests (Art. 196). Immoral doctrines. 5. 4. and 8. P v.
e Planting evidence – to implicate another f
Buy Bust Operation – form of entrapment (P v. Vagrancy and prostitution (Art. 200). Illegal betting on horse races (Art. Grave scandal (Art. sale and possession of lottery tickets or advertisements (Art. Taking part directly or indirectly in –
Sigma Rho ( ΣΡ ) reviewers
78
. 3. 202). Alberto) – not necessary to have prior police surveillance (P v. 199). Illegal cockfighting (Art. Gambling (Art. place on probation for 6 months to 1 year violation of probation – pronounce sentence – convict and serve sentence no violation – discharge him and dismiss the proceeding
 if minor is drug dependent – commit to a center for treatment and rehabilitation
TITLE SIX CRIMES AGAINST PUBLIC MORALS
Crimes against public morals 1. Article 195. Carlos Franca) evidence (P v. What Acts Are Punishable in Gambling
Acts punished 1. Importation. 198). First offense of a minor – suspension of sentence
CONDITIONS:  under 18 at time of commission but not more than 21 at time when judgment was promulgated       found guilty of possession or use of prohibited or regulated drugs not been previously convicted of violating any provision of this Act or the RPC not been placed on probation defer sentence. 201).

27 SCRA 287)
Article 196.
b. or 4.. Knowingly and without lawful purpose possessing lottery list. 80)
Pinball machines or slot machines are considered gambling devices because the result depends upon chance or hazard. Palomar.
Note that possession of any lottery ticket or advertisement is prima facie evidence of an intent to sell. lottery tickets or advertisements. there will be no need or requirement to go into the methods upon how the game is played. or banker in a game of jueteng or similar game. or the exploitation or use of any other mechanical invention or contrivance to determine by chance the loser or winner of money or any object or representative of value. or agreed to pay. signs or symbol which pertain to or are in any manner used in the game of jueteng or any similar game. Significantly. if the game depends wholly upon skill or ability of the players. or any other form of lottery.
2.
Article 197. 3. there is no lottery. 30 Phil. any game of monte. articles of value. IMPORTATION.Elements and Notes in Criminal Law Book II by RENE CALLANTA
a. or percentage game. or wherein wagers consisting of money. Importing into the Philippines from any foreign place or port any lottery ticket or advertisement. there is no gambling.
What is gambling? It is a game or device or method.
Knowingly permitting any form of gambling to be carried on in any place owned or controlled by the offender. banking. Selling or distributing the same in connivance with the importer. paper. conductor. jueteng. dog races. Filart. the result of which depends wholly or chiefly upon chance or hazard.
What is lottery? It is a scheme for the distribution of prizes by chance among persons who have paid. (US vs. BETTING IN SPORT CONTESTS Sigma Rho ( ΣΡ ) reviewers
79
. policy. figures. or 2. 3. or any other game or scheme the results of which depend wholly or chiefly upon chance or hazard. if the game has been identified and declared as a form of gambling by express provision of law. knowingly and with intent to use them. SALE ADVERTISEMENTS
Acts punished
AND
POSSESSION
OF
LOTTERY
TICKETS
OR
1. distribute or use the same in the Philippines. or other matter containing letters. et al. Being maintainer. 4. a valuable consideration for a chance to obtain a prize. If the prizes do not come out of the funds or contributions of the participants. So. or representative of value are made.
The manner of determining whether the game played is prohibited or not is whether the result will depend wholly or chiefly upon chance or hazard. Possessing. (Uy vs. Selling or distributing the same without connivance with the importer of the same.

Revised Election Code). deceitful.
Article 198. Game Machination: any other fraudulent. Any registration or voting days (Republic Act No. ILLEGAL COCKFIGHTING
This article has been modified or repealed by Presidential Decree No.
method. races or sports contest. 946). scheme or agreement by which the
result of any game. and Holy Thursday and Good Friday (Republic Act No.
c. races. races and other sports contests. operation. Betting: Betting money or any object or article of value of representative value upon the result of any game. or sports contests to make points of scores shall be limited deliberately in order to influence the result thereof in favor of one or other team. ILLEGAL BETTING ON HORSE RACE Acts punished Betting on horse races during periods not allowed by law. December 30 (Republic Act No. When horse races not allowed: July 4 (Republic Act No. 229). player or participant. GAME-FIXING OR POINT-SHAVING AND MACHINATIONS IN SPORTS CONTESTS PD 483
• Acts Punishable: a. or sports contests shall be predicated and/or known other than on the basis of the honest playing skill or ability of the players or participants. Maintaining or employing a totalizer or other device or scheme for betting on races or realizing profit therefrom during the periods not allowed by law. races. Point-shaving: any such arrangement combination.
Sigma Rho ( ΣΡ ) reviewers
80
.
Scope – This law shall govern the establishment.Elements and Notes in Criminal Law Book II by RENE CALLANTA
This article has been repealed by Presidential Decree No. Game-fixing or Point-shaving and Machinations in Sport Contests):
PENALIZING BETTING. maintenance and ownership of cockpits. Article 199. scheme or agreement by which
the skill or ability of any player or participant in a fame.
d. Game-fixing: any arrangement. 180. combination. 483 (Betting. 137). unfair or dishonest means. manner or practice employed for the purpose of influencing the result of any game. 449 (The Cockfighting Law of 1974):
COCKFIGHTING LAW OF 1974 PD 449 I.
b.

Good Friday. point shaving and other machinations banking or percentage game.alai or horse racing to include game fixing) and other lotteries. Limitations: This privilege shall be extended for only one time. or any
Sigma Rho ( ΣΡ ) reviewers
81
. June 12. basketball. E. jueteng. subject to the approval of the Chief of Constabulary or his authorized representative. car raising and other races. C. Only Filipino citizens not otherwise inhibited by existing laws shall be allowed to own. black jack. dog racing. slot machines.The penalty of prision mayor in its medium degree or a fine ranging from Five Hundred Pesos to Two Thousand Pesos and in case of recidivism the penalty of prision correccional in its medium degree or a fine of ranging from One Thousand Pesos to Six Thousand Pesos shall be imposed upon: (a) Any person other than those referred to in the succeeding subsection who in any manner. Holy Thursday. or 2. Cockpits shall be constructed and operated within the appropriate areas as prescribed in the Zoning Law or ordinance. When allowed: 1.000 or less. bookies (jai. Only one cockpit shall be allowed in each city or municipality with a population of 100. agricultural. or for the support of national fund-raising campaigns for charitable purposes as may be authorized by the Office of the President upon resolution of a provincial board. cara y cruz or pompiang and the like. City or municipal mayors are authorized to issue licenses for the operation and maintenance of cockpits. boat racing. Cockfighting shall be allowed only in licensed cockpits during Sundays and legal holidays and during local fiestas for not more than 3 days. F. mahjong. commercial or industrial fair.
D. lucky nine. city or municipal. palk que. roulette.November 30. city or municipality where such fair. within a year to a province. carnival or exposition shall be allowed within the month of the local fiesta or for more than 2 occasions a year in the same city of municipality. for a period not exceeding 3 days. B. shall directly or indirectly take part in any game of cockfighting.Elements and Notes in Criminal Law Book II by RENE CALLANTA
II. If the purpose is for the entertainment of foreign dignitaries or for tourists. -. Rules: A. carnival or exposition is to be held. city or municipality. Limitations: a) No cockfighting on the occasion of such fair. boxing. city or municipal council. manage and operated cockpits. During provincial. baccarat and other card games. pinball and other mechanical inventories or devices. in licensed cockpits or in playgrounds or parks. or for returning balikbayans. No gambling of any kind shall be permitted on the premises of the cockpit or place of cockfighting during cockfights. Violations and Penalties. seven-eleven dice games and the like and other contests to include game fixing. high and low. b) No cockfighting shall be held on December 30. 1602 (Simplifying and Providing Stiffer Penalties for Violations of Philippine Gambling Laws)
Section 1. monte. carnival or exposition for a similar period of 3 days upon resolution of the province. 3.
Presidential Decree No. Election Day and during registration days for such election/referendum. volleyball. “pusoy” or Russian Poker. domino.

(b) Any person who shall knowingly permit any form of gambling referred to in the preceding subdivision to be carried on in inhabited or uninhabited places or any building. dog races. whether upon chance or skill. articles of value of representative of value are made. point-shaving and other game machination. conductor of the above gambling schemes. or other matter containing letter. Mere possession is not enough. jai-alai or horse racing bookies and similar game or lottery which has taken place or about to take place. If the place where gambling is carried on has a reputation of a gambling place or that prohibited gambling is frequently carried on therein or the place is a public or government building or barangay hall. Section 2.” resolution of the case against the operation of jai-alai. If the date refers to the future. “Unless authorized by a franchise. the culprit shall be punished by the penalty provided for in its maximum period and a fine of Six Thousand Pesos. The penalty of prision correccional in its medium degree and a fine ranging from Five Hundred pesos to Two Thousand Pesos shall be imposed upon any person who shall knowingly and without lawful purpose in any hour of any day shall have in his possession any lottery list. signs or symbols which pertain to or in any manner used in the game of jueteng. or if a player.Elements and Notes in Criminal Law Book II by RENE CALLANTA
other game or scheme. the skill of the players is immaterial. If the possessor was caught. which do not have a franchise from the national government. umpire. If the date therein refers to the past. paper. Mere possession of lottery tickets or lottery lists is a crime punished also as part of gambling. vessel or other means of transportation owned or controlled by him. Illustration: X was accused one night and found in his possession was a list of jueteng. the Revised Penal Code considered the skill of the player in classifying whether a game is gambling or not. But under the new gambling law. Any game is considered gambling where there are bets or wagers placed with the hope to win a prize therefrom. even sports contents like boxing. The penalty of prision mayor in its medium degree and temporary absolute disqualification and a fine of Six Thousand Pesos shall be imposed if the maintainer. if the skill of the player outweighs the chance or hazard involved in winning the game. any form of gambling is illegal. This will already bring about criminal liability and there is no need to prove that the game was played on the date stated. judge or coach in cases of game-fixing. Exceptions: These are games which are expressly prohibited even without bets. Monte. It was because of this that betting in boxing and basketball games proliferated. jueteng or any form of lottery. referee. Before. betting or wagering determines whether a game is gambling or not. Barangay Official. Pursuant to a memorandum circular issued by the Executive Branch. As a general rule. slot machines. yet the concept of gambling under it has been changed by the new gambling law. bringing about the pernicious effects to the family and economic life of the players. the offshoot of the exemption is the intentional prolonging of the wake of the dead by gambling lords. the game is not considered gambling but a sport. So said the court in the recent
There are so-called parlor games which have been exempted from the operation of the decree like when the games are played during a wake to keep the mourners awake at night. There are two criteria as to when the lottery is in fact becomes a gambling game:
Sigma Rho ( ΣΡ ) reviewers
82
. conductor or banker is a government official. figures. promoter. While the acts under the Revised Penal Code are still punished under the new law. it is necessary to make a distinction whether a ticket or list refers to a past date or to a future date. The penalty of prision correccional in its maximum degree and a fine of Six Thousand Pesos shall be imposed upon the maintainer. chances are he will not go on with it anymore. X cannot be convicted of gambling or illegal possession of lottery list without proving that such game was indeed played on the date stated. X can be convicted by the mere possession with intent to use. Under this law. However. – Any barangay official in whose jurisdiction such gambling house is found and which house has the reputation of a gambling place shall suffer the penalty of prision correccional in its medium period and a fine ranging from Five Hundred to Two Thousand Pesos and temporary absolute disqualifications. Under the old penal code. these are habit-forming and addictive to players. would be gambling insofar as those who are betting therein are concerned. wherein wagers consisting of money.

of course. but only on certain items and the increase in prices is not the same. The increase in the price is the consideration for the chance to win in the lottery and that makes the lottery a gambling game. in effect the public is paying for the price not the product. But if the increase in prices of the articles or commodities was not general. the lottery can be considered a gambling game because the buyers were really after the coupons not the low quality cigarettes. If without the lottery or raffle. This includes concerts for causes. Due to the coupons. sponsored a lottery and a coupon is inserted in every pack of cigarette so that one who buys it shall have a chance to participate. is legal when authorized by law. Under this decree. the public is paying for the lottery and not for the merchandise. If the public is made to pay not only for the merchandise that he is buying. manufacture cigarettes which is not saleable because the same is irritating to the throat. and the like.Elements and Notes in Criminal Law Book II by RENE CALLANTA
1. and therefore the lottery is a gambling game. (2) The merchandise is not really saleable because of its inferior quality. Whenever someone buys from that supermarket. the public started buying the cigarette. but with the lottery the public starts patronizing such merchandise. therefore not illegal. And the sponsors thereof may be prosecuted for illegal gambling under Presidential Decree No. They are for charitable purposes but they have to obtain a permit from Department of Social Welfare and Development.
OFFENSES AGAINST DECENCY AND GOOD CUSTOMS Article 200 GRAVE SCANDAL
• ELEMENTS: a. lottery becomes a gambling game. Although there was no price increase in the cigarettes. so that the public actually does not buy them. the public does not patronize the product and starts to patronize them only after the lottery or raffle. the management increased their prices of the merchandise by 10 cents each. If the increase in price is brought about by the normal price increase [economic factor] that even without the lottery the price would be like that. Bhey Company. Fund-raising campaigns are not gambling. Also.
2. But this is not being implemented. 1602. If the increase in the price is due particularly to the lottery. In effect. there is no consideration in favor of the lottery and the lottery would not amount to a gambling game. Highly scandalous conduct does not expressly fall within any other article of the RPC
Sigma Rho ( ΣΡ ) reviewers
83
. you have to determine whether the increase in the price was due to the lottery or brought about by the normal price increase. Offender performs an act b. Public is made to pay a higher price. he gets a coupon which is to be dropped at designated drop boxes to be raffled on a certain period. then the lottery is a gambling game. the fact that a lottery is sponsored does not appear to be tied up with the increase in prices. The increase of the price is to answer for the cost of the valuable prices that will be covered at stake. in case of manufacturers. Act is highly scandalous as offending against decency or good customs c. a barangay captain who is responsible for the existence of gambling dens in their own locality will be held liable and disqualified from office if he fails to prosecute these gamblers. Gambling. If the merchandise is not saleable because of its inferior quality. Christmas caroling. Public is not made to pay a higher price. he pays 10 cents more for each merchandise and for his purchase. A certain manufacturer. but also for the chance to win a prize out of the lottery.
Illustrations: (1) A certain supermarket wanted to increase its sales and sponsored a lottery where valuable prices are offered at stake. To defray the cost of the prices offered in the lottery.

They are committed publicly and thus. although it does not disturb public peace. (2) A man and a woman went to Luneta and slept there. It is no defense that she is doing it in her private home. Public view is not necessary so long as it is performed in a public place.
* Public view does not require numerous persons. It is still open to the public view. whether in the public place or in a private place: (1) (2) In public place. give rise to public scandal to persons who have accidentally witnessed the acts
* The crime of grave scandal is a crime against public morals. Even if there was only one person who witnessed the offensive act for as long as the third person was not an intruder.Elements and Notes in Criminal Law Book II by RENE CALLANTA d.
• •
•
Decency: means properly observing the requirements of modesty. a lady tenant had the habit of undressing in her room without shutting the blinds. you can expect people outside gathered in front of her window looking at her silhouette. it is sufficient if in public place. the scandal involved refers to disturbances of the public tranquility and not to acts offensive to decency. social conventions carried on by tradition and enforced by social disapproval in case of violation If the acts complained of are punishable under another provision of the RPC. public view or public knowledge is required. the scandal involved refers to moral scandal offensive to decency. it may occur even in a private place. Committed in a public place or within the public knowledge or view.
•
The essence of grave scandal is publicity and that the acts committed are not only contrary to morals and good customs but must likewise be of such character as to cause public scandal to those witnessing it. For public knowledge. (The public view is
not required. grave scandal is committed provided the act does not fall under any other crime in the Revised Penal Code. Art 200 is not applicable
* Any act which is notoriously offensive to decency may bring about criminal liability for the crime of grave scandal provided such act does not constitute some other crime under the Revised Penal Code. Necessarily. This is grave scandal. Her defense was that she was doing it in her own house. When act offensive to decency is done in a private place. good taste etc Customs: refers to established usage. But such conduct or act must be open to the public view. She was charged of grave scandal. the crime would be acts of lasciviousness. (3) In a certain apartment. If it is against the will of the woman.
Sigma Rho ( ΣΡ ) reviewers
84
. In short public view is not required.
Distinction should be made as to the place where the offensive act was committed.
•
GRAVE SCANDAL: consists of acts which are offensive to decency and good customs. the criminal liability arises irrespective of whether the immoral act is open to the public view. In alarms and scandals. Grave scandal is a crime of last resort. They covered themselves their blanket and made the grass their conjugal bed. She does this every night at about eight in the evening. this constitutes grave scandal. the number of people who sees it is not material). the offender must commit the crime in a public place or within the view of the public. But if there is mutuality. So that at this hour of the night.
In grave scandal. Illustrations: (1) A man and a woman enters a movie house which is a public place and then goes to the darkest part of the balcony and while there the man started performing acts of lasciviousness on the woman.

lust or pornography c. This is an act which even though done in a private place is nonetheless open to public view. morals. A matter can also be considered obscene if it shocks the ordinary and common sense of men as indecency. scenes or acts: a.
•
However.
* In committing this crime. Those who sell. * If the material has the tendency to deprave and corrupt the mind of the viewer then the same is obscene and where such obscenity is made publicly. lawful orders. Her defense was that it is her own private pool and it is those men looking down at her who are malicious. * The law is not concerned with the moral of one person. It means the act or acts done must come to the knowledge of third persons. decrees and edicts
Sigma Rho ( ΣΡ ) reviewers
85
. Editors publishing such obscene literature d. there must be publicity. cinemas or any other place f. As long as the pornographic matter or exhibition is made privately. sculptures or literature which are offensive to morals
• •
MORALS: implies conformity to generally accepted standards of goodness or rightness in conduct or character TEST OF OBSCENITY: whether the matter has a tendency to deprave or corrupt the minds of those who are open to immoral influences. those w/c serve no other purpose but to satisfy the market for violence. public order. those w/c offend against any race or religion d. OBSCENE PUBLICATIONS AND EXHIBITIONS:
• Persons liable: a. Those who publicly expound or proclaim doctrines that are contrary to public morals b. published with their knowledge in any form c. fairs. acts or shows ion theaters. good customs.
Article 201 IMMORAL DOCTRINES. Authors of obscene literature. there is no crime committed under the Revised Penal Code because what is protected is the morality of the public in general.
> The test is objective. engraving. or exhibit prints. established policies. Owners or operators of establishments selling obscene literature e. criminal liability arises. scenes. It is more on the effect upon the viewer and not alone on the conduct of the performer. The lady was then charged with grave scandal. those w/c tend to abet the traffic in and the use of prohibited drugs e. those w/c glorify criminals or condone crimes b. Art 201 enumerates what are considered as obscene literature or immoral or indecent plays. Those who exhibit indecent or immoral plays. distribute. Every morning several men in the upper floors would stick their heads out to get a full view of said lady while in her two-piece swimsuit.Elements and Notes in Criminal Law Book II by RENE CALLANTA
(4) In a particular building in Makati which stands right next to the house of a young lady who goes sunbathing in her poolside. those that are contrary to law.

206).
TITLE SEVEN CRIMES COMMITTED BY PUBLIC OFFICERS
Crimes committed by public officers 1. Idle or dissolute persons lodging in houses of ill-fame e. even if there is no sexual intercourse. Malicious delay in the administration of justice (Art. 2. The moment the parties carry their private rights and privileges to public view. Those who have no apparent means of subsistence and who have the physical ability to work yet neglect to apply themselves to some useful calling b. Persons found loitering in inhabited or uninhabited places belonging to others. 4. they expose themselves to public scrutiny. Persons tramping or wandering around the country or the streets with no visible means of support d. Persons found loitering around public and semi-public places without visible means of support c. Unjust interlocutory order (Art.refer to women who habitually indulge in sexual intercourse or lascivious conduct for money or profit (if a man indulges in the same conduct: vagrancy)
* In law the mere indulging in lascivious conduct habitually because of money or gain would amount to prostitution. 207). without any lawful or justifiable reason provided the act does not fall within any other article of the RPC Trespass to dwelling Attempted theft Vagrancy
If fenced and with prohibition of entry If fenced and entered to hunt/fish If not fenced and with no prohibition of entry
•
Who are considered prostitutes . 3. * There cannot be prostitution by conspiracy.
Sigma Rho ( ΣΡ ) reviewers
86
.Elements and Notes in Criminal Law Book II by RENE CALLANTA
• • Mere nudity in paintings and pictures is not obscene Pictures w/ a slight degree of obscenity having no artistic value and intended for commercial purposes fall within this article Publicity is an essential element
•
* Sexual indulgence is not in itself immoral if done within the bounds of privacy and performed normally. One who conspires with a woman in the prostitution business like pimps. Judgment rendered through negligence (Art. Habituality is the controlling factor. 205). taxi drivers or solicitors of clients are guilty of the crime under Article 341 for white slavery. Virginity is not a defense. Knowingly rendering unjust judgment (Art. Ruffians or pimps and those who habitually associate with prostitutes (may include even the rich) f. it has to be more than one time. 204).
Article 202 VAGRANTS AND PROSTITUTES:
• Who are considered vagrants: a.

Public officer revealing secrets of private individual (Art. 225). 238).
Article 203 • WHO ARE PUBLIC OFFICERS:
a. Removal. Prohibited transactions (Art. Usurpation of legislative powers (Art. 232). 239). or b. 212). 237). Direct bribery (Art. Maltreatment of prisoners (Art. Prosecution of offenses. Other frauds (Art. 236).
* The designation of the title is misleading. Evasion through negligence (Art. 31. 223). Revelation of secrets by an officer (Art. Failure to make delivery of public funds or property (Art. 11. 241). Unlawful appointments (Art. agent or subordinate official in the gov’t or any of its branches
• Notes: Public officer must derive his authority from: 1. 9. Opening of closed documents (Art. 213). 36. 235). Abandonment of office or position (Art. Qualified bribery (Art. 27. 22. 6. Failure of a responsible public officer to render accounts before leaving the country (Art. popular election 3. 211). 39. 8. 25. 26. Orders or requests by executive officers to any judicial authority (Art. 229). 227). or accessory to the crime. Crimes under this title can be committed by public officers or a non-public officer. 38. 218). 234).appointment by competent authority
Sigma Rho ( ΣΡ ) reviewers
87
. 244). 13. 30. 233). * In some cases. Usurpation of executive functions (Art. when the latter become a conspirator with a public officer. 242). 224). and Abuses against chastity (Art. 21. Performs public duties as an employee. 12. 231). Indirect bribery (Art. Takes part in the performance of public functions in the Government. 33. Usurpation of judicial functions (Art. 230). Betrayal of trust by an attorney or solicitor – Revelation of secrets (Art. 240). 37. Prolonging performance of duties and powers (Art. 214). 209). Anticipation of duties of a public office (Art. 14. direct provision of law 2. 226). 16. Corruption of public officials (Art. negligence and tolerance (Art. 34. or an accomplice. Escape of prisoner under the custody of a person not a public officer (Art. 215). Refusal to discharge elective office (Art. 29. 20. 40. 17. 42. 35. 32. 23. Disobeying request for disqualification (Art. 228). 210). The public officer has to be the principal. 245). Refusal of assistance (Art. Open disobedience (Art. 243). 211-A). Illegal use of public funds or property (Art. 217) Failure of accountable officer to render accounts (Art. 208). 28. Disobedience to order of superior officer when said order was suspended by inferior officer (Art. Frauds against the public treasury and similar offenses (Art. 18. 221). Possession of prohibited interest by a public officer (Art. 220). Officer breaking seal (Art. 24. Conniving with or consenting to evasion (Art. 7. it can even be committed by a private citizen alone such as in Article 275 (infidelity in the custody of a prisoner where the offender is not a public officer) or in Article 222 (malversation). Malversation of public funds or property – Presumption of malversation (Art. 216). concealment or destruction of documents (Art.Elements and Notes in Criminal Law Book II by RENE CALLANTA
5. 41. 10. 19. 15. 219).

the law makes the reference to the manner by which he is appointed to public office. UNJUST JUDGMENT: one which is contrary to law. Nonfeasance: means omission of an act which ought to be done
Malfeasance Misfeasance Nonfeasance Doing of an act which a public officer should not have done Improper doing of an act which a person might lawfully do Failure of an agent to perform his undertaking for the principal
Article 204: KNOWINGLY RENDERING AN UNJUST JUDGMENT
• ELEMENTS: a. Malfeasance: means performance of an act which ought not to be done c. It is not presumed * To be liable for the above crime. It must contain a clear and distinct statement of facts proved or admitted by the defendant and upon which the judgment is based. the term public officer is broader and more comprehensive because it includes all persons whether an official or an employee. Breach of oath of office partakes of three forms:
a. personally and directly prepared by the judge. ill-will or revenge 3. 3019 (The Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act). Offender is a judge b. not only must the judgment be proved to be unjust . or both An unjust judgment may result from: 1. bribery * There must be evidence that the decision rendered is unjust. classified or not.
* A government laborer is not a public officer. or not supported by the evidence. However.it must likewise be established to have been knowingly rendered. Any person who receives compensation for services rendered is a public officer. contractual or otherwise. There must be a conscious and
Sigma Rho ( ΣΡ ) reviewers
88
. temporary or not. Renders a judgment in the case submitted to him for judgment c.Elements and Notes in Criminal Law Book II by RENE CALLANTA
* In defining the term “public officers”. and signed by him. error (with bad faith) 2. Knowledge that the decision is unjust • Notes: JUDGMENT: is a final consideration and determination by a court of competent jurisdiction of the issues submitted to it in an action or proceeding * The law requires that the judgment must be written in the official language. Judgment is unjust d. Misfeasance: means improper performance of an act which might be properly be
performed
b. temporary performance by a laborer of public functions makes him a public officer * Crimes committed by public officers are nothing but corruption in public service. He thus becomes a public officer because of his appointment by competent authority or because he is elected to public office. Public officers: embraces every public servant from the lowest to the highest rank
Under Republic Act No.

Offender is a judge b. b. or knowingly issuing an unjust interlocutory order. (Cortes vs. That the offender is a judge. envy. 279 SCRA 1)
Article 206 UNJUST INTERLOCUTORY ORDER
• ELEMENTS: a. That he performs any of the following acts: 1. That he delays the administration of justice. * Abuse of discretion or mere error of judgment cannot likewise serve as basis for rendering an unjust judgment in the absence of proof or even an allegation of bad faith (motive or improper consideration).
•
INTERLOCUTORY ORDER: one issued by the court deciding a collateral or incidental matter. The reason for this is that in appellate court. or greed against one of the parties. This usually occurs when the judge entertains hatred.
Sigma Rho ( ΣΡ ) reviewers
89
. revenge. Catral. There must be an apparent and notorious manifestation of lack of logic and false interpretation of the law. Judgment is manifestly unjust d. b. not only one magistrate renders or issues the interlocutory order. Renders a judgment in a case submitted to him for decision c. An appellate court functions as a division and the resolutions thereof are handed down only after deliberations among the members of a division so that it cannot be said that there is malice or inexcusable negligence or ignorance in the rendering of a judgment or order that is supposedly unjust as held by the Supreme Court in one administrative case. knowingly renders unjust interlocutory order or decree. c. renders a manifestly unjust interlocutory order or decree through inexcusable negligence or ignorance.Elements and Notes in Criminal Law Book II by RENE CALLANTA
deliberate intent to do an injustice. It is not a final determination of the issues of the action or proceeding
* The crime of knowingly rendering an unjust judgment. That there is a proceeding in his court.
Article 205 JUDGMENT RENDERED THROUGH NEGLIGENCE
• ELEMENTS: a. That the offender is a judge.
Article 207 MALICIOUS DELAY IN THE ADMINISTRATION OR JUSTICE
• ELEMENTS: a. may be committed only by a judge of a trial court and never of an appellate court. or 2. The ignorance may refer to substantive or procedural law. Due to inexcusable negligence or ignorance
•
MANIFESTLY UNJUST JUDGMENT: one that is so contrary to law that even a person having meager knowledge of the law cannot doubt the injustice
* The unjust judgment is merely the result of inexcusable negligence or ignorance of the law.

Illustration: The offender was caught for white slavery. and before the Regional Trial Court and Metropolitan Trial Court. 2. That there is dereliction of the duties of his office. Malice is present where the delay is sought to favor one party to the prejudice of the other. Note however.
Article 208 PROSECUTION OF OFFENSES. the delay is caused by the judge with deliberate intent to inflict damage on either party in the case. The policeman allowed the offender to go free for some consideration. G. such peace officer cannot be prosecuted for this crime but they can be prosecuted as: (1) (2) (3) An accessory to the crime committed by the principal in accordance with Article 19.
•
PREVARICACION: negligence and tolerance in the prosecution of an offense
* A public officer engaged in the prosecution of offenders shall maliciously tolerate the commission of crimes or refrain from prosecuting offenders or violators of the law. that a fiscal is under no compulsion to file an information based upon a complaint if he is not convinced that the evidence before him does not warrant filing an action in court
When a policeman tolerates the commission of a crime or otherwise refrains from apprehending the offender.
•
There must be a duty on the part of the public officer to prosecute or move for the prosecution of the offender. Before the Court of Appeals.
* The Constitution provides that cases submitted for decision before the Supreme Court must be resolved within two years. that is. or He may be held liable for violating the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act. he does not cause (a) the prosecution of the criminal ( People vs. knowing the commission of the
crime. state prosecutors.Elements and Notes in Criminal Law Book II by RENE CALLANTA
d. * These have been interpreted by the Supreme Court to refer only to judges of the trial court. 42648) or (b) knowing that a crime is about to be committed he tolerates its commission (if gift/promise is a consideration for his conduct: direct bribery) c. paragraph 3. that is. those officers who are not duty bound to perform these obligations cannot commit this crime in the strict sense. • Mere delay without malice is not punishable
* Malice must be proven. such cases must be resolved within 1 year. That the offender is a public officer or officer of the law who has a duty to cause the prosecution of. * This crime can only be committed by a public officer whose official duty is to prosecute offenders. Rosales.
Sigma Rho ( ΣΡ ) reviewers
90
.
b. that is. or to prosecute offenses. no. Maliciously tolerating the commission of offenses. in which case he violates the Anti-Fencing Law. Hence. Maliciously refraining from instituting prosecution against violators of the law. such cases must be decided within a period of three months or ninety days. That the offender acts with malice and deliberate intent to favor the violator of the law.R.
•
ELEMENTS OF DERELICTION OF DUTY IN THE PROSECUTION OF OFFENSES: a. The policeman does not violate Article 208 but he becomes an accessory to the crime of white slavery. NEGLIGENCE AND TOLERANCE
Acts Punished 1. or He may become a fence if the crime committed is robbery or theft. That the delay is malicious.

offer. 211-A. for a sum of money. refrains from prosecuting a person charged before him. gift or present has a consideration on the part of the public officer. The dereliction of duty referred to is necessarily included in the crime of qualified bribery. he becomes a fence. that is refraining from arresting or prosecuting the offender in consideration for such offer. In the latter situation. gift or present . If the crime is punishable by a penalty lower than reclusion perpetua. promise. promise. Qualified Bribery – If any public officer is entrusted with law enforcement and he refrains from arresting or prosecuting an offender who has committed a crime punishable by Reclusion Perpetua and/or death in consideration of any offer.
• •
The crime must be proved first before an officer can be convicted of dereliction of duty A public officer who harbors. this new provision modifies Article 210 of the Revised Penal Code on direct bribery. where the public officer agreed to perform an act constituting a crime in connection with the performance of his official duties. or present. This is because in direct bribery. Apparently.” But this crime arises only when the offender whom such public officer refrains from arresting or prosecuting. If it is the public officer who asks or demands such gift or present. they can be prosecuted for this crime. Therefore. However. he shall suffer the penalty for the offense which was not prosecuted.Elements and Notes in Criminal Law Book II by RENE CALLANTA
But in the crime of theft or robbery. three crimes are committed: direct bribery and dereliction of duty on the part of the fiscal. if the crime shall have been committed. Among the amendments made by Republic Act No. they are peace officers and public prosecutors since the nonfeasance refers to “arresting or prosecuting. has committed a crime punishable by reclusion perpetua and/or death. They are supposed to prosecute violators of laws within their jurisdiction. he shall suffer the penalty of death. * Actually the crime is a kind of direct bribery where the bribe. If the crime were punishable by a lower penalty. 7659 on the Revised Penal Code is a new provision which reads as follows: Article. because the latter is not absorbed by the crime of direct bribery. Illustration: A fiscal. or assists in the escape of an offender. If the penalty for the crime involved is reclusion perpetua. if the crime was direct bribery under Article 210 of the Revised Penal Code. then such nonfeasance by the public officer would amount to direct bribery. * On the other hand. he can be prosecuted under this article. consider the crime of qualified bribery. the fiscal commits qualified bribery. If he is the one who tolerates the violations of laws or otherwise allows offenders to escape. in distant provinces or municipalities where there are no municipal attorneys. conceals. He is not an accessory Article not applicable to revenue officers
•
* Relative to this crime under Article 208. and corruption of a public officer by the giver. the crime is direct bribery. where the policeman shared in the loot and allowed the offender to go free. which is a crime under Article 208 of the Revised Penal Code. Article 210 expressly provides that the liabilty thereunder shall be “in addition to the penalty corresponding to the crime agreed upon. This is also true in the case of a barangay chairman. he is considered an offender under the Anti-Fencing Law. not qualified bribery. the local chief of police is the prosecuting officer. If they do not do so. when it is his duty to prosecute him is liable as principal in the crime of dereliction of duty in the prosecution of offenses.
Article 209 BETRAYAL OF TRUST BY AN ATTORNEY OR SOLICITOR
Sigma Rho ( ΣΡ ) reviewers
91
. * If the crime was qualified bribery. promise. gift. In a way. the public officer involved should be prosecuted also for the dereliction of duty. * However. the dereliction of the duty punished under Article 208 of the Revised Penal Code should be absorbed because said article punishes the public officer who “maliciously refrains from instituting prosecution for the punishment of violators of the law or shall tolerate the commission of offenses”. the crime of qualified bribery may be committed only by public officers “entrusted with enforcement” whose official duties authorize then to arrest or prosecute offenders.

The breach of professional duty must be malicious. although it may be the subject of administrative discipline. Several acts which would make a lawyer criminally liable: (1) Maliciously causing damage to his client through a breach of his professional duty. A received confidential information from B. or 2. Otherwise. However. If it is just incidental.g. Undertaking the defense of the opposite party in a case without the consent of the first client whose defense has already been undertaken. The lawyer and his secretary or clerk cannot be examined thereon. Illustration: A went to B. matters that are considered confidential must have been said to the lawyer with the view of engaging his services. A is not bound to B. C. * That this communication with a prospective client is considered privileged. implies that the same is confidential. Revelation of secrets learned in his professional capacity. Revealing any of the secrets of his client learned by him in his professional capacity
(damage not necessary)
c. If B will disclose what was narrated to him there is no betrayal of trust since B is acting as a notary public and not as a counsel. suspension or disbarment under the Code of Professional Responsibility. Illustration: B. Here. causing damage to the client. Therefore. or it was made to him with a view to engaging his professional services.
b. e. who is involved in the crime of seduction wanted A. A narrated to B the detail of the criminal case. The client-lawyer relationship between A and B was not yet established. although the lawyer’s act may be considered unethical. Therefore.. if A would reveal the confidential matter learned by him from B. B cannot pay the professional fee of A. a lawyer/notary public. then Article 209 is violated because it is enough that such confidential matters were communicated to him in his professional capacity. an attorney at law. Mere malicious breach without damage is not violative of Article 209. came to A also and the same was accepted. the communication shall not be considered privileged and no trust is violated. The lawyer must have learned the confidential matter in his professional capacity. However.
(2) (3) (4) (5)
Sigma Rho ( ΣΡ ) reviewers
92
. he would already be violating Article 209. by any malicious breach of professional duty. if the lawyer would reveal the same or otherwise accept a case from the adverse party. communications made with prospective clients to a lawyer with a view to engaging his professional services are already privileged even though the client-lawyer relationship did not eventually materialize because the client cannot afford the fee being asked by the lawyer. at most he will be liable administratively as a lawyer. to have a document notarized. to handle his case. it would not give rise to criminal liability. the offended party. there is no trust to violate because B has not yet actually engaged the services of the lawyer A. A did not commit the crime under Article 209. there must be damage to his client. Through gross ignorance. * Under the rules on evidence. Causing damage to client (prejudice is essential) either 1.Elements and Notes in Criminal Law Book II by RENE CALLANTA
(NOT NECESSARILY A PUBLIC OFFICER ALTHOUGH ALL LAWYERS ARE OFFICERS OF THE COURT) • ACTS PUNISHED: a. Undertaking the defense of the opposing party of the 1st client and/or having received
confidential information from the latter and without the latter’s consent (damage not necessary)
Note: When the attorney acts with malicious abuse of his employment or inexcusable negligence or ignorance. Inexcusable negligence. by inexcusable negligence or ignorance.

The mere breach of confidential relation is punishable. the lawyer is not liable. That the offender be a public officer within the scope of Art 203 b. It is. This cannot be done. > If the prosecutor was tardy and the case was dismissed as non-prosecuted. 2. it is not only the lawyer who is protected by the matter of privilege but also the office staff like the secretary. and the case was continued. or tardiness on the part of the defense counsel leading to declaration of default and adverse judgment. That the offender accepts an offer or promise or receives a gift or present by himself or through another
c. the lawyer cannot be held liable. if the lawyer disclosed the confidential information to other people. he would be criminally liable even though the client did not suffer any damage. not privileged in character. > The client who was suing his wife disclosed that he also committed acts of unfaithfulness. > If lawyer was neglectful in filing an answer. BREACH OF PROFESSIONAL DUTY > Tardiness in the prosecution of the case for which reason the case was dismissed for being nonprosecuted. and his client declared in default. Otherwise. thus. * It is not the duty of the lawyer to give advice on the commission of a future crime. it is necessary that the confidential matters or information was confided to the lawyer in the latter’s professional capacity. The lawyer is not bound by the mandate of privilege communication if he reports such commission of a future crime.
3. 2 and 3 must approximate malice. It is only confidential information relating to crimes already committed that are covered by the crime of betrayal of trust if the lawyer should undertake the case of opposing party or otherwise divulge confidential information of a client. liable. > In a conjugal case. because the client did not suffer damage. or to refrain from doing something which is his official duty to do
Sigma Rho ( ΣΡ ) reviewers
93
. the client suffered damages. The lawyer talked about this to a friend. > Professional duties – Lawyer must appear on time. but the act must be unjust (delivery of consideration is necessary). The lawyer is liable. That such offer or promise be accepted or gift/present received by the public officer ( mere
agreement consummates the crime)
1. therefore. * A lawyer who had already undertaken the case of a client cannot later on shift to the opposing party.Elements and Notes in Criminal Law Book II by RENE CALLANTA
Note that only numbers 1. * Under the circumstances. and there was an adverse judgment. BREACH OF CONFIDENTIAL RELATION > Revealing information obtained or taking advantage thereof by accepting the engagement with the adverse party. He is. * Under the law on evidence on privileged communication. But the client must have suffered damage due to the breach of professional duty.
Article 210 DIRECT BRIBERY
• ELEMENTS: a.
with a view to committing some crime (delivery of consideration is not necessary) or in consideration of an execution of an act which does not constitute a crime. There is no need to prove that the client suffered damages. * The nominal liability under this article may be constituted either from breach of professional duties in the handling of the case or it may arise out of the confidential relation between the lawyer and the client. but he filed a motion for reconsideration which was granted.

voluntarily offered by a private person b. In short. If the public officer did not report the same to his superior and actually accepted it.Elements and Notes in Criminal Law Book II by RENE CALLANTA
d. the crime was not committed. * It is now settled. The official did not agree to be corrupted. that the crime of bribery and corruption of public officials cannot be committed in the frustrated stage because this requires two to commit and that means a meeting of the minds. arbitrators. appraisal and claim commissioners. So this crime requires two to commit. the direct bribery is already consummated. that one has performed all the acts of execution which would produce the felony as a consequence but for reasons independent of the will. If it were extortion. the crime is not bribery. you cannot have a giver unless there is one who is willing to receive and there cannot be a receiver unless there is one willing to give. solicited by the public officer but the private person delivers it out of fear of the consequences should the public officer perform his functions (here the crime by giver is not corruption of public officials due to involuntariness)
•
Actual receipt of the gift is not only if acts constitutes a crime necessary. The corruptor becomes liable for consummated corruption of public official. if the offer is not accepted. only attempted or consummated. An accepted offer or promise of a gift is sufficient. he allowed himself to be corrupted.
•
Bribery exists when the gift is: a. the offender must have performed all the acts of execution which would produce the felony as a consequence. solicited by the public officer and voluntarily delivered by the private person c. only the person offering the gift is liable for attempted corruption of a public officer The gift must have a value or capable of pecuniary estimation. (2) If a public official demanded something from a taxpayer who pretended to agree and use marked money with the knowledge of the police. temporary performance of public functions is sufficient to constitute a person a public officer. Once there is concurrence. the crime of the public official is attempted bribery. Be sure that what is involved is a crime of bribery.
* Direct bribery may be committed only in the attempted and consummated stages because. the offender could not have performed all the acts of execution to produce the felony without consummating the same. The one who yielded to the demand does not commit corruption of a public officer because it was involuntary. therefore. That the act which the offender agrees to perform or which he executes be connected with the performance of his official duties
* Bribery refers to the act of the receiver and the act of the giver is corruption of public official. he could not perform all the acts of execution. In direct bribery. experts or any other person performing public duties Cannot be frustrated. * Actually. It could be in the form of money. It cannot be said. Illustrations: (1) If the public official accepted the corrupt consideration and turned it over to his superior as evidence of the corruption. in frustrated felony. the offense is attempted corruption only and not frustrated. The public officer also becomes equally liable for consummated bribery. but robbery.
• •
• •
For purposes of this article. A private person may commit this crime only in the case in which custody of prisoners is entrusted to him Applicable also to assessors. not extortion. However. The reason is that because the giver has no intention to corrupt her and therefore. therefore. property or services
•
Sigma Rho ( ΣΡ ) reviewers
94
. it is possible only if the corruptor concurs with the offender.

the other as principal by direct participation. brings about the crime of direct bribery and corruption of public official. the consideration must be delivered by the corruptor before a public officer can be prosecuted for bribery. This is not necessary in prevaricacion
Distinction between direct bribery and indirect bribery
Sigma Rho ( ΣΡ ) reviewers
95
. he. even if no money was delivered to him. So they were waiting for the chance to entrap him. there is no bribery. or if he performs what he is supposed to perform in anticipation of being paid the money. he shall be liable for the penalty corresponding to the crime in addition to the penalty for bribery
* In direct bribery. * The same criterion will apply with respect to a public officer who agrees to refrain from performing his official duties. The mere agreement is a felony already. The prohibition will apply only when the money is delivered to him. * If it will amount to a crime. the bribery will only arise when there is already the acceptance of the consideration because the act to be done is not a crime. It is necessary that there must be delivery of monetary consideration. another crime is committed: falsification. without the acceptance. If the refraining is not a crime. the mere agreement to do so will consummate the bribery and the corruption. which the public officer agreed to do. Unknown to them. which is infidelity in the custody of the public records for which they shall be liable as principals. it is not necessary that the corruptor should deliver the consideration or the doing of the act.00. * Unless the public officer receives the consideration for doing his official duty. If the records were actually removed.000. is already bribery.Elements and Notes in Criminal Law Book II by RENE CALLANTA
• If the act required of the public officer amounts to a crime and he commits it. which amounts to a crime. even without the public officer performing the act amounting to a crime. (2) A party litigant approached the court’s stenographer and proposed the idea of altering the transcript of stenographic notes. Mere agreement. They were apprehended and they said they have not done anything yet. is a crime or not. even without the delivery of the consideration. as well as the corruptor shall be liable also for that other crime. is not enough to constitute the crime because the act to be done in the first place is legitimate or in the performance of the official duties of the public official. If he changed the transcript. If the public officer commits the act which constitutes the crime. In direct bribery however. without delivery of the consideration. both the public officer and the corruptor will in addition to the two felonies above. This is so because in the second situation. The reason is that the agreement is a conspiracy involving the duty of a public officer. Corruption is already committed on the part of the supposed giver.
•
The third type of bribery and prevaricacion (art 208) are similar offenses. such as refraining to prosecute an offender. The court stenographer agreed and he demanded P 2. the crime is not committed. If the refraining would give rise to a crime. * If it is not a crime. both consisting of omissions to do an act required to be performed. * Here. the mere agreement. He is not supposed to demand additional compensation from the public before performing his public service. That stenographer becomes liable already for consummated crime of bribery and the party who agreed to give that money is already liable for consummated corruption. the public officer actually performed what he is supposed to perform. Illustrations: (1) If the corruptor offers a consideration to a custodian of a public record to remove certain files. one as principal by inducement. It is just that he would not perform what he is required by law to perform without an added consideration from the public which gives rise to the crime. a gift or promise is given in consideration of the omission. will also be liable for the crime committed. Under Article 210. there were law enforcers who already had a tip that the court stenographer had been doing this before. consider whether the official act. even though not a single centavo is delivered yet and even though the stenographer had not yet made the alterations. it would only amount to bribery if the consideration be delivered to him. The moment there is a meeting of the minds. bribery is already committed on the part of the public officer. So. the mere agreement to commit the act. * The idea of the law is that he is being paid salary for being there.

Illustration: Without any understanding with the public officer.
•
There is no attempted or frustrated indirect bribery The principal distinction between direct and indirect bribery is that in the former. It is the act of appropriating that signifies acceptance. If there is only a promise of a gift or money. and the policeman demanded money so he will not be arrested. So never use the term “consideration. 5) or Bribery (Article 210). He found out that he is a taxi operator . no crime is committed because of the language of the law which uses the phrase “shall accept gifts. Upon receipt by the BLT registrar of his valuable suiting material.
* Robbery should be distinguished from Bribery where a law enforcer. That the offender is a public officer. money or anything of value by reason of his office. Victim is deprived of his money or property by force or intimidation. the crime is Bribery. employing intimidation and threatening to arrest the latter if he will not come across with money may be guilty of Robbery (Article 294. the crime is Robbery. But if no crime has been committed and the policeman is falsely charging him of having committed one. c. present or consideration given to him. If the victim actually committed a crime. Otherwise it would be very easy to remove a public officer: just deliver a gift to him. threatening to arrest him if he will not come across with some consideration. Merely delivering the gift to the public officer does not bring about the crime. b. say a policeman.
Bribery (210) When the victim has committed a crime and gives money/gift to avoid arrest or prosecution. That he accepts gifts.” • There must be clear intention on the part of the public officer to take the gift offered and consider the property as his own for that moment. It is just indirect bribery If the BLT registrar calls up his subordinates and said to take care of the taxis of the taxi operator so much so that the registration of the taxis is facilitated ahead of the others. not "in consideration" thereof. extorts money from a person. circumstance or act to show such acceptance is not sufficient to convict the officer
* The Supreme Court has laid down the rule that for indirect bribery to be committed. he is giving this by reason of the office or position of the public officer involved. he asked who the giver was. • The gift is given in anticipation of future favor from the public officer Indirect bribery. If he simply accepts a gift or present given to him by reason of his public position. Bear in mind that the gift is given "by reason of his office". Mere physical receipt unaccompanied by any other sign. the public officer receives or accepts gifts. Victim parts with his money or property voluntarily. par. the crime is indirect bribery. That the said gifts are offered to him by reason of his office. what originally would have been indirect bribery becomes direct bribery. his family or employees.” The public officer in Indirect bribery is not to perform any official act. * Note however that what may begin as an indirect bribery may actually ripen into direct bribery.
Article 211 INDIRECT BRIBERY
• ELEMENTS: a.
Robbery (294) When the victim did not commit a crime and he is intimidated with arrest and/or prosecution to deprive him of his personal property. a taxi operator gave an expensive suiting material to a BLT registrar. the public officer must have performed an act of appropriating of the gift for himself. the officer agrees to perform or refrain from doing an act in consideration of the gift or promise. As far as the giver is concerned.Elements and Notes in Criminal Law Book II by RENE CALLANTA
Bribery is direct when a public officer is called upon to perform or refrain from performing an official act in exchange for the gift. In the
•
Sigma Rho ( ΣΡ ) reviewers
96
.

he has to be charged first with the receiver. Before trial. But first. It provides immunity to the bribe-giver provided he does two things: (1) He voluntarily discloses the transaction he had with the public officer constituting direct or indirect bribery. b. the crime is direct bribery) c. even during anniversary.
Before the bribe-giver may be dropped from the information. or any gift-giving anniversary. The giving of parties by reason of the promotion of a public official is considered a crime even though it may call for a celebration. five conditions have to be met:
Sigma Rho ( ΣΡ ) reviewers
97
. The giving of a party is not limited to the public officer only but also to any member of his family. promise or gift
* Note that the penalty is DEATH if the public officer is the one who asks or demands such present. The criminal penalty or imprisonment is distinct from the administrative penalty of suspension from the service
Article 211-A QUALIFIED BRIBERY
• ELEMENTS: a. New Year.
> He need not receive the gift or present because a mere offer or promise is sufficient.Elements and Notes in Criminal Law Book II by RENE CALLANTA
latter case. regardless of whether or not the same is for past or future favors. The act may or may not be accomplished
Presidential Decree No. The Presidential Decree punishes both receiver and giver. it is not necessary that the officer do any act. or when there is an occasion like Christmas. 46 prohibits giving and acceptance of gifts by a public officer or to a public officer.
Article 212 CORRUPTION OF PUBLIC OFFICIALS
• ELEMENTS: a. 749
> The decree grants immunity from prosecution to a private person or public officer who shall voluntarily give information and testify in a case of bribery or in a case involving a violation of the Anti-graft and Corrupt Practices Act. (2) He must willingly testify against the public officer involved in the case to be filed against the latter. including Christmas are liable under PD 46. In consideration of any offer. Public officer entrusted with law enforcement b. The prohibition giving and receiving gifts given by reason of official position. That the offers or promises are made or the gifts or presents given to a public officer. under circumstances that will make the public officer liable for direct bribery or indirect bribery • The offender is the giver of the gift or the offeror of the promise. Refrains from arresting/prosecuting offender for crime punishable by reclusion perpetua and/or death (if lower penalty than stated above. It is sufficient that he accepts the gift offered by reason of his office
•
•
Public officers receiving gifts and private persons giving gifts on any occasion. 46
Presidential Decree No. prosecutor may move for dropping bribe-giver from information and be granted immunity. or any other corrupt transaction. That the offender makes offers or promises or gives gifts or present to a public officer.
Presidential Decree No.

Elements and Notes in Criminal Law Book II by RENE CALLANTA
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) Information must refer to consummated bribery. If the same is false. If there were other transactions where the informant also participated.000. By receiving. connection or influence to unjustly enrich himself or themselves at the expense and to the damage and prejudice of the Filipino people.000. * The immunity attaches only if the information given turns out to be true and correct . * The immunity granted the bribe-giver is limited only to the illegal transaction where the informant gave voluntarily the testimony. 211-A). the degree of participation and the attendance of mitigating and aggravating circumstances shall be considered by the court”. or By taking undue advantage of official position. which became effective in 1991. or accepting directly or indirectly any shares of stock. conversion. equity or any other form of interest or participation including the promise of future employment in any business or undertaking. By obtaining. malversation (Article 217). acquires. That the information can be corroborated in its material points. Any amount less than P50. This crime somehow modified certain crimes in the Revised Penal Code insofar as the overt acts by which a public officer amasses. and the Republic of the Philippines. or malversation of public funds or raids on the public treasury. The amount was reduced from P75.000. Under the law on plunder. receiving. Information is necessary for the proper conviction of the public officer involved. Republic Act No. By illegal or fraudulent conveyance or disposition of asset belonging to the national government or any of its subdivisions. misuse. gift. authority. the prescriptive period is 20 years commencing from the time of the last overt act. By establishing agricultural. percentage.000. relationship.
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
While the crime appears to be malum prohibitum. 7659 and the penalty was changed from life imprisonment to reclusion perpetua to death.000. any commission. directly or indirectly.00. he is not immune from prosecution.
Republic Act No.000. Short of the amount. 7080 provides that “in the imposition of penalties. 7080.
Sigma Rho ( ΣΡ ) reviewers
98
. plunder does not arise. the public officer may even file criminal and civil actions against the informant for perjury and the immunity under the decree will not protect him. The immunity in one transaction does not extend to other transactions.00 is a violation of the Revised Penal Code or the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act. industrial. or commercial monopolies or other combinations and/or implementations of decrees and orders intended to benefit particular persons or special interests. 211. or accumulates ill-gotten wealth are felonies under the Revised Penal Code like bribery (Articles 210. That the informant has not been convicted previously for any crime involving moral turpitude. fraud against the public treasury [Article 213]. Plunder is committed through a combination or series of overt acts: (1) (2) Through misappropriation. agencies or instrumentalities or government-owned or controlled corporations and their subsidiaries. That the information or testimony to be given is not yet in the possession of the government or known to the government.
* These conditions are analogous to the conditions under the State Witness Rule under Criminal Procedure.00 by Republic Act No. when the ill-gotten wealth amounts to a total value of P50. share. 7080 (Plunder)
Plunder is a crime defined and penalized under Republic Act No. other frauds (Article 214). kickbacks or any other form of pecuniary benefit from any person and/or entity in connection with any government contract or project by reason of the office or position of the public officer.

any Government permit or license. or for the purpose of favoring his own interest of giving undue advantage in favor of or discriminating against any other interested party. contract or transaction in connection with which he intervenes or take part in his official capacity. administrative or judicial function through manifest partiality. Directly. or other pecuniary or material benefit. permit. or advantage. for personal gain. or benefit for himself or for any other person in connection with any contract or transaction between the government and any other party wherein the public officer in his official capacity has to intervene under the law. or of a mere representative or dummy of one who is not so qualified or entitled. This provision shall apply to officers and employees of offices or government corporations charged with the grant of licenses or permits or other concessions. in any manner of capacity. 3. privilege. into any contract or transaction manifestly and grossly disadvantageous to the same. 7. 5. acquired by his office or by him on account of his official position to unauthorized persons. from any person interested in the matter some pecuniary or material benefit or advantage. inducing or influencing another public officer to perform an act constituting a violation of rules and regulations duly promulgated by competent authority or an offense in connection with the official duties of the latter. or allowing himself to be persuaded. permit. or influenced to commit such violation or offense. or will secure or obtain. induced. 9. Causing any undue injury to any party. Accepting or having any member of his family accept employment in a private enterprise which has pending official business with him during the pendency thereof or within one year after its termination. or benefit in favor of any person not qualified for or not legally entitled to such license. Neglecting or refusing. 11. 2. Divulging valuable information of a confidential character. Directly or indirectly having financial or pecuniary interest in any business. for himself or for another. 4. panel or group. or pecuniary advantage from
a. 8. Any person having family or close personal relation with any public official who shall capitalize or exploit or take advantage of such family or close personal relation by directly or indirectly requesting or receiving any present. or preference in the discharge of his official. Directly or indirectly requesting or receiving any gift.
Sigma Rho ( ΣΡ ) reviewers
99
. advantage. or in which he is prohibited by the constitution or by any law from having any interest. and which exercises discretion in such approval. Directly or indirectly becoming interested. or having a material interest in any transaction or act requiring the approval of a board. after due demand or request. even if he votes against the same or does not participate in the action of the board. privilege. present. in consideration for the held given or to be given. b. or material. or group of which he is a member. including the Government. Entering. evident bad faith or gross inexcusable negligence. or indirectly requesting or receiving any gift.Elements and Notes in Criminal Law Book II by RENE CALLANTA ANTI-GRAFT AND CORRUPT PRACTICES ACT RA 3019
• Persons Liable: Any public officer who shall perform any of the following acts: 1. 10. to act within a reasonable time on any matter pending before him for the purpose of obtaining directly or indirectly. 6. panel. share. without sufficient justification. or giving any private party any unwarranted benefits. percentage. gift. committee. Persuading. whether or not the public officer profited or will profit thereby. present. has secured or obtained. on behalf of the Government. or releasing such information in advance of its authorized release date. Knowingly approving or granting any license. from any person for whom the public officer.

during the term for which he has been elected. directly or indirectly. 4)
d. Any transaction. 2. who shall acquire or receive any personal pecuniary interest in any specific business enterprise which shall be directly and particularly favored or benefited by any law or resolution authored by him previously approved or adopted by Congress during his term. 4. detailed and sworn statement of assets
and liabilities within 30 days after assuming office and thereafter on or before the 15th day of April following the close of every calendar year. application. request. Any person who. transaction. by consanguinity or affinity. Any public officer who shall fail to file a true. Prescription of offenses: all offenses punishable under this Act shall prescribe in 15 years (Sec. This prohibition shall not apply to: 1. Any act lawfully performed an official capacity or in the exercise of a profession. exclusive jurisdiction over the case shall be vested in the proper Regional Trial Court. 3. 5). of the president of the Philippines. 8) If a public official has been found to have acquired during his incumbency. e. an amount of property and/or money manifestly out of proportion to his salary and to his other lawful income. PNP officers occupying the rank of superintendent or higher of their equivalent. when their acquisition through legitimate means cannot be satisfactorily shown. Any person who shall knowingly induce or cause any public official to commit any of the offenses under (A). or speaker of the house of Representatives. within the 3 rd civil degree.
Spouse or any relative. the president of the Senate. IV. * In case none of the principal accused are occupying positions corresponding to salary grade 27 or higher. 7). has been already dealing with the gov’t along the same line of business. prior to the assumption of office of any of the above officials to whom he is related. 4) c. the vice-president. or contact with the government in which such public official has to intervene (Sec. (Sec.
Sigma Rho ( ΣΡ ) reviewers
100
. Bank deposits in the name of or manifestly excessive expenditures incurred by the public official.Elements and Notes in Criminal Law Book II by RENE CALLANTA
any person having some business. or upon his resignation or separation from office (Sec.
•
Prima Facie Evidence of and Dismissal due to unexplained Wealth (Sec. 10).
f. who shall intervene. 11). Any application filed by him. Competent court: All prosecutions under this Act shall be within the original jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan (Sec. Properties in the name of the spouse and dependents of such public official may be taken into consideration.
•
•
III. the approval of which is not discretionary on the part of the official(s) concerned but depends upon compliance with requisites provided by law. whether in his name or in the name of other persons. contract or application with the gov’t (Sec. The decision of the court in these cases shall be appealable to the Sandiganbayan which exercises exclusive appellate jurisdiction over them. as well as upon the expiration of his term of office. Metropolitan Trial Court and Municipal Circuit Trial Court as the case may be. Any member of congress. his spouse or any of their dependents including but not limited to activities in any club or association or any ostentatious display of wealth including frequent travel abroad of a nonofficial character by any public official when such activities entail expenses evidently out of proportion to legitimate income.
III. or rules or regulations issued pursuant to law. contract or application already existing or pending at the time of such assumption of public office. in any business transaction.

Exceptions: Unsolicited gifts or presents of small or insignificant value offered or given as a mere ordinary token of gratitude of friendship according to local customs or usage. Sub-Section A. i. or that the acts for which he stands charged do not constitute a violation of the provisions of R. but will amount to a violation of the Anti-graft and Corrupt Practices Act.. However. * Once the information is found to be sufficient in form and substance. 128 SCRA 383). shall be excepted from the provisions of this act (Sec. the court must issue the suspension order as a matter of course and there are no ifs and buts about it (Bayot vs.
Sigma Rho ( ΣΡ ) reviewers
101
. the respondent shall be automatically reinstated in the service: Provided. Such right of the accused to challenge the validity of the information covers (a) the right to challenge the sufficiency of the recitals of the information vis-à-vis the essential elements of the offense as defined by substantive law. it is necessary that a presuspension hearing be held by the court wherein the accused is afforded the opportunity to challenge the validity of the information filed against him. Some of them are mere repetitions of the act already penalized under the Revised Penal Code. Sandiganbayan.”(Segovia vs. Sandiganbayan.Elements and Notes in Criminal Law Book II by RENE CALLANTA
V. good faith is not a defense. (b) the right to challenge the validity of the criminal proceedings leading to the filing of the information. But there are acts penalized under the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act which are not penalized under the Revised Penal Code. That when the delay in the disposition of the case is due to the fault. by express provision of the law. No.e. et al. Sandiganbayan) ORTEGA NOTES:
The mere act of a public officer demanding an amount from a taxpayer to whom he is to render public service does not amount to bribery. In such a case. it becomes incumbent upon the court to place under preventive suspension the public officer who stands accused before it. even if the judge did not do so. et al. Illustration: A court secretary received P500 . Those acts may be considered as mala prohibita. Illustration: “ CATCH ALL PROVISION” Section 3 (e) of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act – causing undue injury to the government or a private party by giving unwarranted benefit to the party whom does not deserve the same.A. the act or omission remains to be mala in se. supra). before the order of suspension is issued. Rule 117 of the Rules of Court (People vs. that he has not been afforded the right of due preliminary investigation. This is direct bribery even if the act to be performed is within his official duty so long as he received a consideration therefor. the period of delay shall not be counted in computing the period of suspension herein provided. 14).. negligence or petition of the respondent. Under the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act. * Once the case is filed with the Sandiganbayan. If the secretary persuaded the judge to make a favorable resolution. particularly Section 3.00 from a litigant to set a motion for an early hearing. which would warrant his mandatory suspension from office under Section 13 of this Act. like prohibited transactions under Article 215 and 216. he may frustrate his prosecution to commit further acts of malfeasance or both (Bayot vs. 3019. * “When the administrative case against the officer or employee under preventive suspension is not finally disposed of by the disciplining authority within the period of ninety (90) days after the date of suspension of the respondent who is not a presidential appointee. Therefore. Albano. there are several acts defined as corrupt practices. and (c) the right to raise the issue that the information can be quashed under any of the grounds provided in Section 2. 163 SCRA 511). this constitutes a violation of Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act.. * Preventive suspension is resorted to in order to prevent the accused from using his office to intimidate witnesses or frustrate his prosecution or continue committing malfeasance in office because the presumption is that unless the accused is suspended.

The prosecution shall file the case in the Regional Trial Court unless the violation carries a penalty higher than prision correccional. Section 3 (g) of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act – where a public officer entered into a contract for the government which is manifestly disadvantageous to the government even if he did not profit from the transaction. The fact that the government benefited out of the prohibited act is no defense at all. Criminal intent on the part of the offender is not required. the public officer who is accused should not be automatically suspended upon the filing of the information in court. What would be the liability of the public officer? The liability of the traffic policeman would be merely administrative. good faith is not a defense because it is a malum prohibitum. The civilian agreed so he left with the thief. The term “prisoner” refers to one who is already booked and incarcerated no matter how short the time may be. in which case the Sandiganbayan has jurisdiction. Where the public officer is still incumbent. Illustration: A public officer was assigned to direct traffic in a very busy corner. As he could not leave his post. The civilian has no liability at all. The accused public officer must be suspended when the case is already filed with the Sandiganbayan. His only course of action to avoid prosecution under the Anti-graft and Corrupt Practices Act is to sell his interest in the enterprise which has filed an application before that board. As long as the court has not ordered the suspension of the public officer involved. Illustration: Sen. he is assigned to direct traffic in a busy corner street. Where the respondent is separated from service and the period has not yet prescribed. he commits a violation thereof. When they were beyond the view of the policeman. Dominador Aytono had an interest in the Iligan Steel Mills. he caught a thief in the act of lifting the wallet of a pedestrian. If a public officer. Without a hearing. a violation of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act is committed. he should resign from his public position. the public officer concerned shall be liable for violation of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act.Elements and Notes in Criminal Law Book II by RENE CALLANTA
In this case. the information shall be filed in any prosecution’s office in the city where the respondent resides. It is enough that he performed the prohibited act voluntarily. The policeman could not be said as having assisted the escape of the offender because as the problem says. the superior of that public officer is not authorized to order the suspension simply because of the violation of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act. the offender is not yet a prisoner so there is no accountability yet. any public officer who is a member of that board. The crime is still committed because the law is not after the effect of the act as long as the act is prohibited. panel or group where he is a member. Firstly. the civilian allowed the thief to go home. the violation being mala prohibita. It is enough that that the act was performed. Even though the prohibited act may have benefited the government. even if he voted against it. panel or group. Or otherwise. Jurisdiction is exclusively with the Sandiganbayan. which is snatching or a kind of robbery or theft as the case may be. He was threatened with prosecution under Republic Act No. is not one of those crimes mentioned under the third paragraph of Article 19 of the Revised Penal Code. he summoned a civilian to deliver the thief to the precinct. 3019 so he was compelled to sell all his interest in that steel mill. Where the public officer is a member of the board. as long as he has an interest in that business enterprise whose application is pending before that board. panel or group. there is no defense. While there. These cases are filed with the Ombudsman and not with the regular prosecutor’s office. Because the law says so. Under the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act. with his office and a private enterprise had a transaction and he allows a relative or member of his family to accept employment in that enterprise. The same is true with the civilian because the crime committed by the offender.
Sigma Rho ( ΣΡ ) reviewers
102
. the suspension would be null and void for being violative of due process. So he cannot be considered as falling under the third 3rd paragraph of Article 19 that would constitute his as an accessory. even though he voted against the approval of the application. the prosecution shall be with the Ombudsman. panel or group who is to act on an application of a contract and the act involved one of discretion. which at that time was being subject of an investigation by the Senate Committee of which he was a chairman. good faith is not a defense because it is in the nature of a malum prohibitum. The court will not order the suspension of the public officer without first passing upon the validity of the information filed in court. It is the court which will order the suspension of the public officer and not the superior of that public officer.

must be for the purpose of obtaining from any person interested in the matter some pecuniary or material benefit or for the purpose of favoring any interested party. The prosecutor conducts a preliminary investigation just like in a criminal case and he will forward his findings to the office of the Solicitor General. This element is indispensable. That he entered into an agreement with any interested party or speculator or made use of any other scheme with regard to (a) furnishing supplies (b) the making of contracts. If the Solicitor General finds probable cause.
Sigma Rho ( ΣΡ ) reviewers
103
. That he should have taken advantage of his office. That the accused had intent to defraud the government. * The allocation or outlay was made the basis of fraudulent quotations made by the public officer involved.properly under Remedial Law. Remember that this is not a criminal proceeding. That the offender be a public officer. 1379 (Forfeiture of Ill-gotten Wealth)
Correlate with RA 1379 -. The law itself additionally requires that the accused’s dereliction. Judgment is rendered and appeal is just like in a civil case. decided on August 18. SB. This occurs usually in cases where a public officer whose official duty is to procure supplies for the government or enter into contract for government transactions. besides being without justification. This is covered by the Rules on Civil Procedure. connives with the said supplier with the intention to defraud the government.
Republic Act No. he would file a petition requesting the court to issue a writ commanding the respondent to show cause why the ill-gotten wealth described in the petition should not be forfeited in favor of the government. The respondent is given 15 days to answer the petition. 1) a. or (c) the adjustment or settlement of account relating to a public property or funds. Also when certain supplies for the government are purchased for the high price but its quantity or quality is low. c. Any taxpayer having knowledge that a public officer has amassed wealth out of proportion to this legitimate income may file a complaint with the prosecutor’s office of the place where the public officer resides or holds office. that is.
•
Notes: > The public officer must act in his official capacity > The felony is consummated by merely entering into an agreement with any interested party or speculator or by merely making use of any scheme to defraud the Government
* The essence of this crime is making the government pay for something not received or making it pay more than what is due. he intervened in the transaction in his official capacity. This provides the procedure for forfeiture of the ill-gotten wealth in violation of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act. or discriminating against another interested party. or purposely to favor the other interested party as held in Coronado v. * Not all frauds will constitute this crime. b. The basic difference is that the preliminary investigation is conducted by the prosecutor.Elements and Notes in Criminal Law Book II by RENE CALLANTA
Section 3 (f) of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act – where the public officer neglects or refuses to act on a matter pending before him for the purpose of obtaining any pecuniary or material benefit or advantage in favor of or discriminating against another interested party. the neglect or refusal to act must motivated by gain or benefit.
FRAUDS AND ILLEGAL EXACTIONS AND TRANSACTIONS Article 213 FRAUDS AGAINST PUBLIC TREASURY
• ELEMENTS: (par. Thereafter trial would proceed. The Solicitor General will determine whether there is reasonable ground to believe that the respondent has accumulated an unexplained wealth. The proceedings are civil and not criminal in nature. It is also committed by refunding more than the amount which should properly be refunded. In other words. d. There must be no fixed allocation or amount on the matter acted upon by the public officer. 1993.

ILLEGAL EXACTIONS (par 2)
• ELEMENTS: a. However. demanding. directly or indirectly the payment of sums different from or larger than those authorized by law. In this case there is no fraud against the public treasury because there is a fixed allocation. • Notes:
* This can only be committed principally by a public officer whose official duty is to collect taxes.00 instead of the actual price of P500. or 3. The fraud is in the implementation of procurement. He is guilty of any of the following acts or omissions: 1. * Be sure to determine whether fraud is against public treasury or one under Article 214. pricing each light bulb at P550.
* If sums are received without demanding the same.000.
* Mere demand of a larger or different amount is sufficient to consummate the crime.00. which is in the nature of swindling or estafa. This is a case of fraud against public treasury.Elements and Notes in Criminal Law Book II by RENE CALLANTA
For example. things or objects of a nature different from that provided by law. or of an inferior quality. import duties and other dues payable to the government. failing voluntarily to issue a receipt.00 for the lighting apparatus needed and the public officer connived with the seller so that although allocation was made a lesser number was asked to be delivered. license fees. An officer was asked to canvass the cost but he connived with the seller of light bulbs. b. it is not necessary that the amount being demanded is bigger than what is payable to the government. The essence is the improper collection (damage to gov’t is not required)
On the first form of illegal exaction In this form. for any sum of money collected by him officially. That will not affect the consummation of the crime. That would constitute the crime of “other fraud” in Article 214. Collecting or receiving. The offender is a public officer entrusted with the collection of taxes. it is estafa. fees and other imposts. Fixers cannot commit this crime unless he conspires with the public officer authorized to make the collection. or 2. the crime committed is estafa * May be complexed with malversation
Sigma Rho ( ΣΡ ) reviewers
104
. * Not any public officer can commit this crime. as provided by law. directly or indirectly. even if the taxpayer shall refuse to come across with the amount being demanded. Otherwise. licenses. or secondhand. by way of payment or otherwise. If there is a fixed outlay of P20. > In the demand. * The essence of the crime is not misappropriation of any of the amounts but the improper making of the collection which would prejudice the accounting of collected amounts by the government. mere demand will consummate the crime. if the sum is given as a sort of gift or gratification. the crime is indirect bribery * When there is deceit in demanding larger fees. a felony under this article is not committed. The amount being demanded maybe less than the amount due the government. there was a need to put some additional lighting along a street and no one knows how much it will cost.

00 and he extracted the difference of P100. What is due the government is P400.00 which the public officer pocketed. the duplicate was altered in order to conceal the malversation.00. The mere act of demanding is enough to constitute this crime. the crime of illegal exaction is not committed. But the municipal treasurer. even though not payable to the government. The falsification or alteration made on the duplicate can not be said as a means to commit malversation.00.00 without any falsification.00 which is due the government. therefore. The mere fact that there was a demand for an amount different from what is due the government. It is the taxpayer who has been defrauded of his P100. The taxpayer left. It remained to be private.00. It is the breach of trust by a public officer entrusted to make the collection which is penalized under such article. will already consummate the crime of illegal exaction.00 and the public officer issues a receipt for P500. In this case. therefore. In this crime.00. the public officer did not include in the official receipt the P100.00 upon payment of the taxpayer of said amount demanded by the public officer involved.00 and. It cannot also be said that the falsification is a necessary means to commit the malversation because the public officer can misappropriate the P100. Falsification – because there was an alteration of official document which is the duplicate of the official receipt to show an amount less than the actual amount collected. The crimes committed. the mere demand regardless of whether the taxpayer will pay or not. the crime of illegal exaction is already committed even though the taxpayer does not pay the P500. pay attention to whether the offender is the one charged with the collection of the tax. All that he has to do is to get the excess of P100. If he is not the one authorized by disposition to do the collection.00 was covered by the receipt.00 because that is due the government and pocketed the P100. the public officer already committed the crime of illegal exaction. what is due the government is P400. the whole amount became public funds. But he altered the duplicate to reflect only P400.
(2)
Should the falsification be complexed with the malversation? As far as the crime of illegal exaction is concerned. the crime committed is estafa. However. The taxpayer would naturally ask the municipal treasurer why the receipt was only for P400. So when he appropriated the P100 for his own benefit.00. therefore. Suppose the taxpayer came across with P500. illegal exaction may be complexed with malversation because illegal exaction is a necessary means to be able to collect the P100. On the P100.00 because he can never claim a refund from the government for excess payment since the receipt issued to him was only P400. Actually.
Sigma Rho ( ΣΡ ) reviewers
105
. Illustrations: (1) A taxpayer goes to the local municipal treasurer to pay real estate taxes on his land. Malversation – because of his act of misappropriating the P100.00 and misappropriate it. it can be expected that such public officer will not turn over his collection to the government. He has a receipt for P400. As far as the P100.00 only but the municipal treasurer demanded P500.00.00. license or impost subject of the misappropriation. the entire P500. (3) A taxpayer pays his taxes.00 is supposed to be for documentary stamps. So it cannot be complexed with the malversation. it did not become part of the public funds. That act of covering the whole amount received from the taxpayer in an official receipt will have the characteristics of becoming a part of the public funds. he was not extracting private funds anymore but public funds. At most. The entire P500. So the falsification is a separate accusation.00 was covered by an official receipt.00 excess which was covered by an official receipt already. By that demand alone. The treasurer answered that the P100. The municipal treasurer turned over to the government coffers P400.00. thinking that he would abstract the P100. it will be the subject of separate accusation because there.Elements and Notes in Criminal Law Book II by RENE CALLANTA
* Note that this is often committed with malversation or estafa because when a public officer shall demand an amount different from what the law provides. will it be malversation or estafa? In the example given.00 excess which was malversed.00.00 is concerned. are the following: (a) (b) (c) Illegal exaction – for collecting more than he is authorized to collect. issued a receipt for only P400.

It will give rise to estafa or theft as the case may be. the check bounced later on. even though he has no intention of misappropriating the amount received by him. * In cases where the payor decides to let the official to “keep the change”. payment of checks not belonging to the taxpayer. their demanding or collecting different from what is necessary is legal
Sigma Rho ( ΣΡ ) reviewers
106
. The crime committed is illegal exaction because the payment by check is not allowed if the check does not pertain to the taxpayer himself. The Municipal Treasurer placed the entire P500. (See the case of Roman Catholic. There must be voluntary failure to issue the Official Receipt.
Although the excess P100.00 and spent it. the crime of illegal exaction is committed. hence. He issued the receipt at P400. but that of checks of other persons. it became part of public funds and subsequent extraction thereof constitutes malversation.00 in the vault of the office. under the principle of accretion.Elements and Notes in Criminal Law Book II by RENE CALLANTA
If it did not give rise to the crime of illegal exaction. On the second form of illegal exaction The act of receiving payment due the government without issuing a receipt will give rise to illegal exaction even though a provisional receipt has been issued. Illustration: A taxpayer pays his obligation with a check not his own but pertaining to another. it was commingled with the other public funds in the vault. When he needed money. If it had not become part of the public funds. while in number 3. The following crimes were committed: (a) (b) (c) Illegal exaction – for demanding a different amount. he took the P100. The payor may demand a refund by virtue of the Official Receipt. which he calls provisional.00 when only P400. it cannot be the subject of malversation. which means official receipt. if any of these acts penalized as illegal exaction is committed by those employed in the Bureau of Customs or Bureau of Internal Revenue.00 was due. should not be accepted to settle the obligation of that person.00 was not covered by the Official Receipt. Because of this discretion. the law that will apply to them will be the Revised Administrative Code or the Tariff and Customs Code or National Revenue Code. the mere fact that he issued a receipt not in the form prescribed by law. Estafa – for deceiving the taxpayer. The official has no right but the government. On the third form of illegal exaction Under the rules and regulations of the government. * The issuance of the Official Receipt is the operative fact to convert the payment into public funds.) * Under Article 213. The NIRC or Administrative Code is the applicable law
>These officers are authorized to make impositions and to enter into compromises. What the law requires is a receipt in the form prescribed by law. amended already as of 1990. the funds collected may not have become part of the public funds. and Malversation – for getting the P100. unless the check is a manager’s check or a certified check. Note that numbers 1 and 2 are complexed as illegal exaction with estafa. or had not become impressed with being part of the public funds. as the owner of the bigger amount becomes the owner of the whole. if the latter should pocket the excess.00 from the vault.00 and explained to taxpayer that the P100 was for documentary stamps. Because of that.
Officers and employees of the BIR or Customs are not covered by the article. he shall be liable for malversation. Illustration: If a government cashier or officer to whom payment is made issued a receipt in his own private form. * This crime does not require damage to the government. (3) The Municipal Treasurer demanded P500. malversation is a distinct offense.

distribution or adjudication of which they had acted. That he takes advantage of his official position. That the offender is an appointive public officer. regularly buying securities for resale is speculation
Article 216 POSSESSION OF PROHIBITED INTERESTS BY A PUBLIC OFFICER
• Who are liable: a. 28 Phil. c. commodities. 315 to 318.
c. * Act is punished because of the possibility that fraud may be committed or that the officer may place his own interest above that of the Government or party which he represents * The mere violation of the prohibition is already punished even if no actual fraud occurs because of the possibility that fraud may be committed or that the officer may place his own interest above that of the government or party he represents. However. Public officer – in any contract or business in which it is his official duty to intervene. arbitrators and private accountants – in any contract or transaction connected
with the estate or property in the approval.
b. • Notes: > Actual fraud is not necessary.
c. • Notes: Examples of transactions of exchange or speculation are: buying and selling stocks. b.Elements and Notes in Criminal Law Book II by RENE CALLANTA
Article 214 OTHER FRAUDS
• ELEMENTS: a. That he becomes interested in the transaction during his incumbency. Article VI of the Constitution
Sigma Rho ( ΣΡ ) reviewers
107
.
swindling) • Note: RTC has jurisdiction over the offense because the principal penalty is disqualification
Article 215 PROHIBITED TRANSACTIONS
• ELEMENTS: a. b. That he becomes interested. Guardians and executors – with respect to property belonging to their wards or the
estate. That he commits any of the frauds or deceits enumerated in art. S. That the transaction takes place within the territory subject to his jurisdiction. in any transaction of exchange or speculation. (U. Udarbe. directly or indirectly. That the offender is a public officer. vs. d. (estafa. land etc wherein one hopes to take advantage of an expected rise or fall in price * Purchasing of stocks or shares in a company is simple investment and not a violation of the article. 383)
Section 14. Experts.

Elements and Notes in Criminal Law Book II by RENE CALLANTA
No Senator or Member of the House of Representatives may personally appear as counsel before any court of justice or before the Electoral Tribunals, or quasi-judicial and other administrative bodies. Neither shall he, directly or indirectly, be interested financially in any contract with, or in any franchise or special privilege granted by the Government or any subdivision, agency or instrumentality thereof, including any government-owned or controlled corporation or its subsidiary, during his term of office. He shall not intervene in any matter before any office of the government for his pecuniary benefit or where he may be called upon to act on account of his office. Section 13, Article VII of the Constitution The President, Vice-President, the Members of the Cabinet and their deputies or assistant shall not, unless otherwise provided in this Constitution, hold any other office or employment during their tenure. They shall not, during said tenure, directly or indirectly, practice any other profession, participate in any business, or be financially interested in any contract with, or in any franchise, or special privilege granted by the Government or any subdivision, agency or instrumentality thereof, including government-owned or controlled corporations or their subsidiaries. They shall strictly avoid conflict of interest in the conduct of their office.

Section 2, Article IX-A of the Constitution No member of a Constitutional Commission shall, during his tenure, hold any office or employment. Neither shall he engage in the practice of any profession or in the active management or control of any business which in any way may be affected by the functions of his office, nor shall he be financially interested, directly or indirectly, in any contract with, or in any franchise or privilege granted by the government, or any of its subdivisions, agencies, or instrumentalities, including government-owned or controlled corporations or their subsidiaries.

MALVERSATION OF PUBLIC FUNDS OR PROPERTY Article 217 MALVERSATION OF PUBLIC FUNDS OR PROPERTY
• ELEMENTS COMMON TO ALL ACTS MALVERSATION OF PUBLIC FUNDS OR PROPERTY : a. That the offender be a public officer (or private person if entrusted with public funds or connived with public officers)

b. That he had the custody or control of funds or property (if not accountable for the funds,
theft or qualified theft)

c. That those funds or property were public funds or property (even if private funds if
attached, seized, deposited or commingled with public funds) d. That he: 1. 2. Appropriated the funds or property Took or misappropriated them

3.

Consented or, through abandonment or negligence, permitted any other person to take such public funds or property. (it is not necessary that the offender profited thereby. His being remiss in the duty of safekeeping public funds violates the trust reposed) Concept of Malversation It consists in the misappropriation or conversion of public funds or property to one’s personal use or knowingly, or through abandonment or negligence allowing other to use or appropriate the same. The offender is made liable because of the nature of his duties to take care of the funds or property entrusted to him with the diligence of a good father of a family. He is accountable by virtue of the nature of his office to account for funds or properties that come to his possession. If he is not accountable for the funds or properties and he misappropriates the same, the crime will not be malversation but estafa under Article 315.

Sigma Rho ( ΣΡ ) reviewers

108

Elements and Notes in Criminal Law Book II by RENE CALLANTA •
Malversation is otherwise called embezzlement

* This crime is predicated on the relationship of the offender to the property or funds involved. The offender must be accountable for the property misappropriated. If the fund or property, though public in character is the responsibility of another officer, malversation is not committed unless there is conspiracy.

* In determining whether the offender is liable for malversation, it is the nature of the duties of the public officer that controls. While the name of the office is important, what is controlling is whether in performing his duties as a public officer, he has to account or is required by the nature of the performance of a duty, to render an account on the money or property that came into his possession.
* It is not necessary that the offender profited because somebody else may have misappropriated the funds in question for as long as the accountable officer was remiss in his duty of safekeeping public funds or property. He is liable for malversation if such funds were lost or otherwise misappropriated by another.

•

It can be committed either with malice or through negligence or imprudence

* There is no crime of malversation through negligence. The crime is malversation, plain and simple, whether committed through dolo or culpa. There is no crime of malversation under Article 365 – on criminal negligence – because in malversation under Article 217, the same penalty is imposed whether the malversation results from negligence or was the product of deliberate act.

•

In determining whether the offender is a public officer, what is controlling is the nature of his office and not the designation

* The offender, to commit malversation, must be accountable for the funds or property misappropriated by him. If he is not the one accountable but somebody else, the crime committed is theft. It will be qualified theft if there is abuse of confidence. * Accountable officer does not refer only to cashier, disbursing officers or property custodian . Any public officer having custody of public funds or property for which he is accountable can commit the crime of malversation if he would misappropriate such fund or property or allow others to do so.

•

The funds or property must be received in an official capacity. Otherwise, the crime committed is estafa

* When private property is attached or seized by public authority and the public officer accountable therefor misappropriates the same, malversation is committed also. Illustration: If a sheriff levied the property of the defendants and absconded with it, he is not liable of qualified theft but of malversation even though the property belonged to a private person. The seizure of the property or fund impressed it with the character of being part of the public funds it being in custodia legis. For as long as the public officer is the one accountable for the fund or property that was misappropriated, he can be liable for the crime of malversation. Absent such relation, the crime could be theft, simple or qualified.

Estafa It is usually committed by a private individual Funds or property of misappropriation are privately owned. The offender appropriates personally the funds or property. •

Malversation Committed by accountable public officers The object is public fund or property. Personal appropriation is not indispensable because allowing others to commit the misappropriation is also malversation.

When a public officer has official custody or the duty to collect or receive funds due the government, or the obligation to account for them, his misappropriation of the same constitutes malversation

* Note that the moment any money is commingled with the public fund even if not due the government, it becomes impressed with the characteristic of being part of public funds. Once they are commingled, you

Sigma Rho ( ΣΡ ) reviewers

109

Elements and Notes in Criminal Law Book II by RENE CALLANTA
do not know anymore which belong to the government and which belong to the private persons. So that a public vault or safe should not be used to hold any fund other that what is due to the government.

•

In malversation thru negligence, the negligence of the accountable public officer must be positively and clearly shown to be inexcusable, approximating fraud or malice

> Under jurisprudence, when the public officer leaves his post without locking his drawer, there is negligence. Thus, he is liable for the loss.

•
•

The measure of negligence to be observed is the standard of care commensurate with the occasion When malversation is not committed through negligence, lack of criminal intent or good faith is a defense

•

The failure of a public officer to have any duly forthcoming public funds or property upon demand, by any authorized officer, shall be prima facie evidence that he has put such missing funds or property to personal use. However, if at the very moment when the shortage is discovered, the accountable officer is notified, and he immediately pays the amount from his pocket, the presumption does not arise * An accountable public officer may be convicted even if there is no direct evidence of misappropriation and the only evidence is the shortage in his account which he has not been able to explain satisfactorily. (Palma Gil vs. People) * If a public officer reports the loss of money before a cash examination is conducted and the cause of the loss as reported has a distinct ring of truth to it, the legal presumption of prima facie evidence of guilt will not apply. In order to support conviction, the prosecution must prove the actual misappropriation of the missing funds.(Salvacion vs. The Honorable Sandiganbayan, G. R. No. 68233, July 11, 1986)

* To rebut the presumption of guilt prima facie under Article 217 , the accused must raise the issue of accuracy, correctness and regularity in the conduct of audit. If asked for a second audit before the filing of the information against him and the same was denied, and during the trial, some disbursement vouchers were introduced which were not considered in the first audit, the denial of the request for a second audit is fatal to the cause of the prosecution because in the meantime, the evidence introduced does not establish a fact beyond reasonable doubt. Had the re-audit requested by the accused been accorded due course, the remaining balance could have been satisfactorily accounted for. (Mahinay vs. The Sandiganbayan. G. R. No. 61442, May 9, 1989)
• Returning the embezzled funds is not exempting, it is only mitigating

* Payment of the amount misappropriated or restitution of property misappropriated does not erase criminal liability but only civil liability.

•

There is also no malversation when the accountable officer is obliged to go out of his office and borrow the amount corresponding to the shortage and later, the missing amount is found in an unaccustomed place A person whose negligence made possible the commission of malversation by another can be held liable as a principal by indispensable cooperation

•

* It is not necessary that the accountable public officer should actually misappropriate the fund or property involved. It is enough that he has violated the trust reposed on him in connection with the property.

•

Demand as well as damage to the government are not necessary elements

* Note that damage on the part of the government is not considered an essential element. It is enough that the proprietary rights of the government over the funds have been disturbed through breach of trust.

* The grant of loans through the vale system is a clear case of an accountable officer consenting to the improper or unauthorized use of public funds by other persons, which is punishable by law. To tolerate such a practice is to give a license to every disbursing officer to conduct a lending operation with the use of public funds. There is no law or regulation allowing

Sigma Rho ( ΣΡ ) reviewers

110

Elements and Notes in Criminal Law Book II by RENE CALLANTA
accountable officers to extend loans to anyone against the “vales” or chits given in exchange by the borrowers. (Meneses vs. Sandiganbayan) A private person may also commit malversation under the following situations:
(1) (2) (3) (4) Conspiracy with a public officer in committing malversation; When he has become an accomplice or accessory to a public officer who commits malversation; When the private person is made the custodian in whatever capacity of public funds or property, whether belonging to national or local government, and he misappropriates the same; When he is constituted as the depositary or administrator of funds or property seized or attached by public authority even though said funds or property belong to a private individual.

* Technical malversation is not included in the crime of malversation. In malversation, the offender misappropriates public funds or property for his own personal use, or allows any other person to take such funds or property for the latter’s own personal use. In technical malversation, the public officer applies the public funds or property under his administration to another public use different from that for which the public fund was appropriated by law or ordinance. Recourse: File the proper information.

Article 218 FAILURE OF ACCOUNTABLE OFFICER TO RENDER ACCOUNTS
• ELEMENTS: a. That the offender is a public officer, whether in the service or separated therefrom. b. That he must be an accountable officer for public funds property. c. That he is required by law or regulation to render accounts to the commission on audit, or to a provincial auditor. d. That he fails to do so for a period of two months after such accounts should be rendered. The public officers who are bound to render accounts are the following:

1. cashiers 2. storekeepers 3. warehousemen and 4. those who by the nature of their position become custodian or public funds or property. •
Note: Demand and misappropriation are not necessary

* It is sufficient that there is a law or regulation requiring him to render an account. It is the failure to follow the requirement of the law that is made punishable. It is not necessary that the offender prevent the situation of the crime being committed because of the failure of the accountable officer to render an account.

Article 219 FAILURE OF A RESPONSIBLE PUBLIC OFFICER TO RENDER ACCOUNTS BEFORE LEAVING THE COUNTRY
• ELEMENTS: a. That the offender is a public officer. b. That he must be an accountable officer for public funds or property. c. That he must have unlawfully left (or be on the point of leaving) the Philippines without securing from the Commission on Audit a certificate showing that his accounts have been finally settled.
Who can commit this crime?

Sigma Rho ( ΣΡ ) reviewers

111

Illustration: A certain road is to be cemented. Bags of cement were already being unloaded at the side. not necessarily an accountable one.
•
Note: The act of leaving the Philippines must be unauthorized or not permitted by law
* Mere leaving without securing clearance constitutes violation of the Revised Penal Code. * Note that when a private person is constituted as the custodian in whatever capacity. d. the public officer applied it to another purpose. and this was applied to a public purpose by the custodian thereof. Instead of applying it to the public purpose to which the fund or property was already appropriated by law. the crime is plain and simple malversation. After the public officer had left. the crime committed is simple malversation only. the funds are merely devoted to some other public use Absence of damage is only a mitigating circumstance
•
* Since damage is not an element of malversation. That he applies the same to a public use other than for which such fund or property has been appropriated by law or ordinance. asked the owner if he could possibly deposit the bags of cement in his garage to prevent the same from being wet. who leaves the country without first securing clearance from the Commission on Audit. Illustration:
Sigma Rho ( ΣΡ ) reviewers
112
. even though the application made proved to be more beneficial to public interest than the original purpose for which the amount or property was appropriated by law. So the bags of cement were transferred to the garage of the private person. * The offender is entrusted with such fund or property only to administer or apply the same to the public purpose for which it was appropriated by law or ordinance. the owner of the garage started using some of the cement in paving his own garage. get some money from his collection. the crime of malversation is also committed. the offender does not derive any personal gain. That the offender is a public officer. If the funds had been appropriated for a particular public purpose.
* The term TECHNICAL MALVERSATION is used because in this crime.
•
To distinguish this article with Art 217. The owner of the house. the fund or property involved is already appropriated or earmarked for a certain public purpose. of public funds or property. It is not necessary that they really misappropriated public funds. * This crime can also be committed by a private person. Illustration: The office lacked bond papers. and he misappropriates the same. but the same was applied to private purpose. That such public fund or property has been appropriated by law or ordinance (without this. rain began to fall so the supervisor of the road building went to a certain house with a garage. just remember that in illegal use of public funds or property. See Article 222. Olive.
it is simple malversation even if applied to other public purpose).Elements and Notes in Criminal Law Book II by RENE CALLANTA
A responsible public officer. told the janitor to buy bond paper so that the office will have something to use.
c. But then. the public officer involved is still liable for technical malversation. The crime of technical malversation is also committed. That there is public fund or property under his administration. agreed. The amount involved maybe immaterial but the cashier commits malversation pure and simple. * If public funds were not yet appropriated by law or ordinance. and the workers had left because it is not possible to do the cementing. What the government cashier did was to send the janitor.
Article 220 ILLEGAL USE OF PUBLIC FUNDS OR PROPERTY (Technical Malversation)
• ELEMENTS: a. b. not technical malversation.

* Private individuals may also be liable for malversation if they act as conspirators in the commission of the crime. The occupant of the house accepted the money for his own use. He told the occupant of the house to safeguard the amount because it is the payroll money of the government laborers of a particular project. however. He is under obligation to either: 1. either detention prisoner or prisoner by final judgment. make payment from such funds 2. Offender has gov’t funds or property in his possession b. That he is charged with the conveyance or custody of a prisoner. He maliciously fails or refuses to do so
• Note: Penalty is based on value of funds/property to be delivered Article 222 PERSONS WHO MAY BE HELD LIABLE UNDER ARTS 217 TO 221
a. or 2) if they are seized by virtue of a search warrant. Or 3) if they are ordered deposited pending determination of ownership in the administrative or judicial proceedings. seized or deposited by public authority. They were all wounded. was able to get away from the scene of the ambush until he reached a certain house. c. That such prisoner escaped from his custody d. to deliver property in his custody or administration when ordered by competent authority c. provincial or municipal funds. Administrator or depositary of funds or property that has been attached. One of them. Private individual who. have charge of any national. revenue. arrested for and charged with some crime or public offense
Sigma Rho ( ΣΡ ) reviewers
113
.
INFIDELITY OF PUBLIC OFFICERS Article 223 CONNIVING WITH OR CONSENTING TO EVASION
• ELEMENTS: a. but they are considered public funds or property if they come to the possession of the public officer because of 1) a writ of attachment. the officers bringing the money were ambushed. The crime is not theft but malversation as long as he knew that what was entrusted in his custody is public fund or property. b. That the offender is a public officer (on duty). That he was in connivance with the prisoner in the latter’s escape
•
DETENTION PRISONER: refers to a person in legal custody. even if owned by a private individual • • Sheriffs and receivers fall under the term “administrator” A judicial administrator in charge of settling the estate of the deceased is not covered by the article
* Here.Elements and Notes in Criminal Law Book II by RENE CALLANTA
The payroll money for a government infrastructure project on the way to the site of the project.
Article 221 FAILURE TO MAKE DELIVERY OF PUBLIC FUNDS OR PROPERTY
ELEMENTS: a. in any capacity. or property b. the funds or property belong to private individuals.

d. including using him as a cook is liable for faithlessness in the custody of prisoner (Art. either detention prisoner or prisoner by final judgment. So that if a policemen on guard duty unlocked the door of the jail to let a detention prisoner go out so he can clean the premises.A. (People vs. Evangelista. That the offender consents to the escape of the prisoner or person under arrest. b. 223) even though the convict may not have fled. the crime is not committed. the negligence must be notorious and apparent. That the conveyance or custody of a prisoner or person under arrest is confined to him. c. Solis. he does not incur criminal liability (unless cooperating with the offender). 38 O. if he is a detention prisoner. in as much as the prisoner’s leaving the prison was effected through him.
Article 224 EVASION THROUGH NEGLIGENCE
• ELEMENTS: a. d.G. 580). 158).Elements and Notes in Criminal Law Book II by RENE CALLANTA
• The release of a detention prisoner who could not be delivered to judicial authorities within the time fixed by law is not infidelity in the custody of a prisoner. * The negligence which is punishable however is not such definite laxity at all but that which amounts to deliberate non-performance of the jailer or the guard.G. c. Neither is mere leniency or laxity in the performance of duty constitutive of infidelity There is real and actual evasion of service of sentence when the custodian permits the prisoner to obtain a relaxation of his imprisonment
•
* A municipal mayor who utilized the prisoner’s services for domestic chores in his house. he is liable for evasion of service (art 157) b. or that the escape takes place through his negligence
Sigma Rho ( ΣΡ ) reviewers
114
. he walked behind the police headquarters climbed over the wall and escape. if he is a prisoner by final judgment. 43 O.A. C. That he is charged with the conveyance or custody of a prisoner.
Article 225 ESCAPE OF PRISONERS UNDER THE CUSTODY OF A PERSON NOT A PUBLIC OFFICER
• ELEMENTS: a. That the prisoner or person under arrest escapes. (People vs. That the offender is a private person (note: must be on duty) b. The laxity must be definite and must seriously suggest a deliberate nonperformance of a duty. but on the latter’s third trip to a nearby faucet. To be liable. Penalty based on nature of imprisonment • The article punishes a definite laxity which amounts to deliberate non-performance of a duty
* Not every error is negligence under this article. That such prisoner escapes through his negligence. That the offender is a public officer. C. • • The fact that the public officer recaptured the prisoner who had escaped from his custody does not afford complete exculpation The liability of an escaping prisoner: a.

told the custodian to leave the door of the cell unlocked for the prisoner to escape. Where such private person. What crime had been committed? It is not infidelity in the custody of prisoners because as far as the private person is concerned. bribery is just a means. ORTEGA NOTES:
The crime is infidelity in the custody of prisoners if the offender involved is the custodian of the prisoner. Thereafter. shall accept any consideration or gift for the non-performance of a duty confided to him. If the crime is delivering prisoners from jail. if you would allow me to leave. While answering the call of nature. The crime of infidelity in the custody of prisoners can be committed only by the custodian of the prisoner. the crime committed by him is delivering prisoners from jail.
Question & Answer If a private person approached the custodian of the prisoner and for a certain consideration.Elements and Notes in Criminal Law Book II by RENE CALLANTA •
Note: This article is not applicable if a private person made the arrest and he consented to the escape of the person he arrested
* The offender under this article is not the one who arrested the escaping prisoner but one who agreed to
have the custody or charge of the prisoner or person under arrest. He commits the crime of delivering prisoners from jail. talked to the head of the family of that house and asked him if he could give the custody of the prisoner to him. this crime is delivering prisoners from jail. The policeman fought the attacker but he was fatally wounded. that would call for the imposition of a heavier penalty. under Article 156. this policeman was shot at with a view to liberate the prisoner from his custody. If the offender who aided or consented to the prisoner’s escaping from confinement. A higher degree of vigilance is required. he allowed him to go. police officer waiting there. Failure to do so will render the custodian liable. bribery is also committed. Note that you do not apply here the principle of conspiracy that the act of one is the act of all. the crime is infidelity. So the crime committed by him is infidelity in the custody of prisoners and bribery. But under Article 225 in infidelity.” This private persons went with the prisoner and when the money was given. After the court hearing. but not a separate charge of bribery under Article 156. The infidelity is only committed by the custodian.
Sigma Rho ( ΣΡ ) reviewers
115
. The prisoner said. the crime can be committed by a private person to whom the custody of a prisoner has been confided. What crime/s had been committed? Under Article 225. while performing a private function by virtue of a provision of law. what is basically punished is the breach of trust because the offender is the custodian. is not the custodian. he went to a nearby house. the crime is delivering prisoners from jail under Article156. He said yes. For that. Illustration: A prison guard accompanied the prisoner in the toilet. The party who is not the custodian who conspired with the custodian in allowing the prisoner to escape does not commit infidelity in the custody of the prisoner. This crime can be committed also by a private person if the custody of the prisoner has been confided to a private person. Illustration: A policeman escorted a prisoner to court. The prevailing ruling is against laxity in the handling of prisoners. If the jail guard who allowed the prisoner to escape is already off-duty at that time and he is no longer the custodian of the prisoner. until the prisoner escaped. you can come with me and I will give the money to you. Police officer was accused of infidelity. When he could no longer control the prisoner. the policeman expired. After the prisoner was handcuffed in his hands. If he violates the trust because of some consideration. the head of the family of that private house asked the prisoner if he could afford to give something so that he would allow him to go. whether the prisoner is a convict or a detention prisoner. “Yes. Bribery is also committed.

destruction or concealment should be coupled with criminal intent or malice (Manzanaris vs. That damage.. OR DESTRUCTION OF DOCUMENTS
• ELEMENTS: a. 64750. That he abstracts. That the offender be a public officer. 1984). that according to a recent Supreme Court ruling. but damage to public interest may consist in mere alarm to the public or the alienation of its confidence on any branch of the government service. 45). there is no crime committed under the law.R. however. failure to accompany lady prisoner in the comfort room is a case of negligence and therefore the custodian is liable for infidelity in the custody of prisoner. That the said document or paper should have been entrusted to such public officer by reason of his office. promissory notes and paper money
•
> Removal of a document presupposes unlawful appropriation of the official document. et al. Note. * The act of obstruction. whether serious or not. No. destruction or concealment must cause damage to a third party or to the public interest. Its nature to prove the existence of a fact is lost such that it cannot anymore prove the probability or improbability of a fact in issue. c. to commit any act constituting a breech of trust in the official thereof
* The act of removal. tamper with it b. b. Sandiganbayan.
•
* If the removal of the document is for a lawful purpose and that is. CONCEALMENT. destroys or conceals a document or papers.
Sigma Rho ( ΣΡ ) reviewers
116
. to profit by it c. to a third party or to the public interest should have been caused. > Destruction means to render the document useless.Elements and Notes in Criminal Law Book II by RENE CALLANTA
There is no criminal liability because it does not constitute negligence. pamphlets etc are not documents “Papers” would include checks.
• A post office official who retained the mail without forwarding the letters to their destination is guilty of infidelity in the custody of papers Removal of a document or paper must be for an illicit purpose. Jan. Negligence contemplated here refers to deliberate abandonment of duty. > Concealment on the other hand means to make it appear that the document is not available. Damage to a third party is usually pecuniary. periodicals. G. d. People.
INFIDELITY IN CUSTODY OF DOCUMENTS Article 226 REMOVAL. This is a case of infidelity in the custody of prisoner through negligence under Article 224. 30. to secure the same from imminent danger or loss. 74 Phil.
•
•
The document must be complete and one by which a right could be established or an obligation could be extinguished Books. Prison guard should not go to any other place not officially called for. • There is illicit purpose when the intention of the offender is to: a. (Kataniag vs.

•
The offender must be in custody of such documents
Distinction between infidelity in the custody of public document. In malicious mischief. * A crime is already committed regardless of whether the contents of the document are secret or private .
•
•
Infidelity in the custody of documents through destruction or concealment does not require proof of an illicit purpose
Where in case for bribery or corruption. It is immaterial whether or not the illicit purpose of the offender has been accomplished
* Removal of public records by the custodian does not require that the record be brought out of the premises where it is kept. Public trust is already violated if he managed to look into the contents of the document. In estafa. It is enough that the record be removed from the place where it should be and transferred to another place where it is not supposed to be kept. the offender is not the custodian of the document removed or concealed. Just trying to discover or look what is inside is infidelity already. such considerations acquires the nature of a document such that if the same would be spent by the custodian the crime is not malversation but Infidelity in the custody of public records. It is enough that it is entrusted to him in a sealed form or in a closed envelope and he broke the seal or opened the envelop. mere delay in rendering public service is considered damage. The mere breaking of the seal or the mere opening of the document would already bring about infidelity even though no damage has been suffered by anyone or by the public at large.
• •
Delivering the document to the wrong party is infidelity in the custody thereof The damage may either be great or small
* Damage to public interest is necessary. That these papers or property are sealed by proper authority. However. Although such monetary consideration acquires the nature of a document. because the money adduced as exhibits partake the nature of a document and not as money. c. If damage is caused to the public service. estafa and malicious mischief In infidelity in the custody of public document. the best evidence rule does not apply here. the offender is the custodian of the official document removed or concealed. The offender does not have to misappropriate the same. • Although there is no material damage caused. the monetary considerations was marked as exhibits. damage is presumed
* If the official document is sealed or otherwise placed in an official envelope.Elements and Notes in Criminal Law Book II by RENE CALLANTA
• Removal is consummated upon removal or secreting away of the document from its usual place. That he breaks the seals or permits them to be broken.
Article 227 OFFICER BREAKING SEAL
• ELEMENTS : a. That the offender is a public officer. b. • • It is the breaking of the seals and not the opening of a closed envelope which is punished Damage or intent to cause damage is not necessary. the public officer is criminally liable for infidelity in the custody of official documents.
Sigma Rho ( ΣΡ ) reviewers
117
. the element of damage is not required. Example. That he is charged with the custody of papers or property. photocopies may be presented in evidence. material damage is not necessary. the offender purposely destroyed and damaged the property/document. d.

c. That he knows of a secret by reason of his official capacity.
•
d. the word "breaking" should not be given a literal meaning. d. That he opens or permits to be opened said closed papers. Note: Damage also not necessary
* In Article 227 . the crime may be espionage. That any closed papers. * Secrets of a private individual is not included * Espionage for the benefit of another State is not contemplated by the article. The breaking of the seal or the opening of the closed document must be done without lawful authority or order from competent authority. * Note that the document must be complete in legal sense. There is theft if there is intent to gain when the offender took the money. be caused to the public interest. documents or objects. (damage is essential) • Notes: > Secret must affect public interest * The secrets referred to in this article are those which have an official or public character. It does not include secret information regarding private individuals. or objects are entrusted to his custody.1: BY REASON OF HIS OFFICIAL CAPACITY a. That the offender is a public officer. Nor does it include military or State secrets in as much as the revelation of the same is classified as espionage.Elements and Notes in Criminal Law Book II by RENE CALLANTA
Distinction between infidelity and theft There is infidelity if the offender opened the letter but did not take the same.
Sigma Rho ( ΣΡ ) reviewers
118
. Illustration: As regard the payroll.
REVELATION OF SECRETS Article 229 REVELATION OF SECRET BY AN OFFICER
• ELEMENTS OF PAR. there is no crime. the mere breaking of the seal is what is made punishable while in Article 228 . That he reveals such secret without authority or justifiable reasons. That he does not have proper authority. b. If the writings are mere form.
Article 228 OPENING OF CLOSED DOCUMENTS
• ELEMENTS: a. If regarding military secrets or secrets affecting state security. b. no infidelity is committed because the document is not yet a payroll in the legal sense since the document has not been signed yet. documents. because the custodian managed to open the parcel without breaking the seal. damage to the public interest is not required. * In "breaking of seal". In both offenses. Even if actually. c. the mere opening of closed documents is enough to hold the offender criminally liable. That the offender is a public officer. That damage. the seal was not broken. which has not been signed by the Mayor. a crime in violation of the national security of the State. great or small.

That the offender is a judicial or executive officer. c. c. decision or order was made within the scope of the jurisdiction of the superior authority and issued with all the legal formalities. That he knows of the secret of a private individual by reason of his office.Elements and Notes in Criminal Law Book II by RENE CALLANTA
• ELEMENTS OF PAR 2 – DELIVERING WRONGFULLY PAPERS OR COPIES OF PAPERS OF WHICH HE MAY HAVE CHARGE AND WHICH SHOULD NOT BE PUBLISHED: a. That the delivery is wrongful. That he has charge of papers. That such judgment. • Notes: That damage be caused to public interest. That the offender is a public officer. f. That there is a judgment.
Sigma Rho ( ΣΡ ) reviewers
119
. b. That the offender is a public officer b. • • • Revelation to one person is sufficient If the offender is an attorney. d. That he reveals such secrets without authority or justification reason. b. That he delivers those papers or copies thereof to a third person. e. their removal for an illicit purpose is infidelity in the custody of documents * Damage is essential to the act committed
Article 230 PUBLIC OFFICER REVEALING SECRETS OF PRIVATE INDIVIDUAL
• ELEMENTS: a. the crime is revelation of secrets. d. If he is merely entrusted with the papers and not with the custody thereof. if the papers do not contain secrets. decision or order of superior authority. and the public officer having charge thereof removes and delivers them wrongfully to a third person. he is properly liable under Art 209 (betrayal of trust by an attorney) Damage to private individual is not necessary
OTHER OFFENSES OR IRREGULARITIES BY PUBLIC OFFICERS Article 231 OPEN DISOBEDIENCE
• ELEMENTS: a. decision or order which he is duty bound to obey. c. On the other hand. he is not liable under this article * If the papers contain secrets which should not be published.
“CHARGE”: means custody or control. * The gravamen of the offense is the open refusal of the offender to execute the order without justifiable reason. that the offender without any legal justification openly refuses to execute the said judgment. That those papers should not be published.

• • Involves a request from one public officer to another Damage to the public interest or third party is essential
* Damage is essential whether great or small. That the offender is a public officer. b. That his superior disapproves the suspension of the execution of the order. when a case under investigation reaches the court. That the offender disobeys his superior despite the disapproval of the suspension.
•
Note: A public officer is not liable if the order of the superior is illegal
* What is contemplated here is a situation where the subordinate has some doubts regarding the legality of the order. e. That a competent authority demands from the offender that he lend his cooperation towards the administration of justice or other public service. if he continues to suspend the execution of the order notwithstanding the disapproval by his superior of the stay of the execution.
Sigma Rho ( ΣΡ ) reviewers
120
.
Article 232 DISOBEDIENCE TO ORDER OF SUPERIOR OFFICER WHEN SAID ORDER WAS SUSPENDED BY INFERIOR OFFICER
ELEMENTS: a. the remedy may not be limited to incurring criminal liability under this article because the refusal may already be punished as direct or indirect contempt of court. That the offender is a public officer. b. he is afforded an opportunity to suspend the execution of the order. decision or order may also direct the non-performance of an act. The term may refer to police authorities. • Demand is necessary
* The situation contemplated herein may refer to the administration of justice before the case is filed in court. Hence. However. He commits no crime for doing this act. d.Elements and Notes in Criminal Law Book II by RENE CALLANTA •
Note: Judgment should have been rendered in a hearing and issued within proper jurisdiction with all legal solemnities required
* The term “execute” as found in the law does not only means performance of an act since the judgment. * The article does not apply to the members of Congress. But the penalty is affected by the seriousness of the damage. That an order is issued by his superior for execution. Competent authority may refer to persons in authority who are charged by the law to help in the administration of justice.
Article 233 REFUSAL OF ASSISTANCE
• ELEMENTS: a. That the offender fails to do so maliciously. such refusal on his part already constitutes a crime punishable under this article. However. Note that the refusal must be done with malice. so as to give him time to further study the same. That he has for any reason suspended the execution of such order. c.
c.

That he has under charge a prisoner or detention prisoner (otherwise the crime is
physical injuries) c. therefore. The penalty is qualified to the next higher degree. > But if as a result of the maltreatment. the policeman does not appear in court anymore to testify against the offenders. then his refusal to perform such duty is punishable under the law. it prohibits the complexing of the crime. and he manhandles the latter. or
2. b. the crime is physical injuries. the constitutional right of the prisoner is further violated. Since it is his duty.
Article 234 REFUSAL TO DISCHARGE ELECTIVE OFFICE
• ELEMENTS: a.
•
Note: Even if the person did not run for the office on his own will as the Constitution provides that every citizen may be required to render service
Article 235 MALTREATMENT OF PRISONERS
• ELEMENTS: a. a separate crime for the physical injuries shall be filed. physical injuries were caused to the prisoner. That he maltreats such prisoner in either of the following manners: 1. it becomes his duty to render public service. He tried to assail the subpoena so that ultimately the case would be dismissed. That there is no legal motive for such refusal to be sworn in or to discharge the duties of said office. You do not complex the crime of physical injuries with the maltreatment because the way Article 235 is worded.
* The maltreatment does not really require physical injuries. That the offender is elected by popular election to a public office. * If the maltreatment was done in order to extort confession. c. By overdoing himself in the correction or handling of a prisoner or detention prisoner under his charge either –   by the imposition of punishments not authorized by the regulations. or by inflicting such punishments (those authorized) in a cruel and humiliating manner.
Sigma Rho ( ΣΡ ) reviewers
121
.
b.Elements and Notes in Criminal Law Book II by RENE CALLANTA
* This is a crime.
•
The public officer must have actual charge of the prisoner in order to be held liable
* If the public officer is not the custodian of the prisoner. being subpoenaed to appear in court in connection with a crime investigated by him but because of some arrangement with the offenders. That he refuses to be sworn in or discharge the duties of said office. It was already held that the policeman could be prosecuted under this crime of refusal of assistance and not that of dereliction of duty. * After proclamation of a candidate to a public office. by maltreating such prisoner to extort a confession or to obtain some information from the prisoner. That the offender is a public officer or employee. which a policeman may commit when. Any kind of punishment not authorized or though authorized if executed in excess of the prescribed degree.

> But if it is the custodian who effected the maltreatment. (People vs. That the period provided by law. Baring. et al.Elements and Notes in Criminal Law Book II by RENE CALLANTA
* If a Barangay Captain maltreats a person after the latter’s arrest but before confinement. c. > But if the custodian is present there and he allowed it. but not for maltreatment because it was not the custodian who inflicted the injury.That the offender is entitled to hold a public office or employment. Illustration: A certain snatcher was arrested by a law enforcer. “This fellow is a snatcher. The victim must actually be confined either as a convict or a detention prisoner for Art. The mere fact that a private citizen had been apprehended or arrested by a law enforcer does not constitute him a prisoner. regulations or special provisions for holding such office has already expired. d. he must have been booked and incarcerated no matter how short it is. he would inflict injury to him. separated or declared over-aged or dismissed
* The crime is committed only if the public officer has lost every right to the office because there are offices which require the officer to continue serving as such properly relieved. brought to the police precinct. To be a prisoner.
Article 237 PROLONGING PERFORMANCE OF DUTIES AND POWERS
• ELEMENTS: a. • To be considered a detention prisoner. 1366).That he has not taken his oath of office and /or given the bond required by law. the offense is not maltreatment but physical injuries. he would ask. b. Every time a policeman entered the police precinct. “What is this fellow doing here? What crime has he committed?”. 235 to apply. the crime will be maltreatment of prisoners plus a separate charge for physical injuries. That he assumes the performance of the duties and powers of such office. 37 O.
Article 238 Sigma Rho ( ΣΡ ) reviewers
122
. c.G. This is not maltreatment of prisoner because the offender is not the custodian. That the offender is holding a public office. then he will be liable also for the physical injuries inflicted. b.” So every time a policeman would come in.That the law requires that he should first be sworn in and/or should first give a bond. either by election or appointment. That he continues to exercise the duties and powers of such office. The law is intended to put an end to the “principle of hold – over”. The crime is only physical injuries. The other policeman would then tell.
•
Offender may also be held liable for physical injuries or damage caused
Article 236 ANTICIPATION OF DUTIES OF A PUBLIC OFFICE
• ELEMENTS: a.. the person arrested must be placed in jail even for just a short while
* The offended party here must be a prisoner in the legal sense . turned over to the custodian of that police precinct. • Note: The article contemplates officers who have been suspended.

sedition o. misprision of treason d. The resignation must be in writing and directed to the appointing power who has the authority to accept or disapprove the same. inciting to sedition
Abandonment of Office or Position Dereliction of Duty (208) (238) There is actual abandonment through Public officer does not abandon his office resignation to evade the discharge of but merely fails to prosecute a violation of duties. correspondence with hostile country h.
Article 240 USURPATION OF EXECUTIVE FUNCTIONS
ELEMENTS: a. • There must be formal or written resignation
* Oral resignation is not allowed. The penalty is higher ( one degree ).Elements and Notes in Criminal Law Book II by RENE CALLANTA ABANDONMENT OF OFFICE OR POSITION
ELEMENTS: a.) obstructs executive authorities in the lawful exercise of their powers. inciting to war or giving motives to reprisals f. That he (a. That he formally resigns from his position.) attempts to repeal a law or (c. inciting to rebellion n. rebellion k.) suspends the execution thereof.
• The offense is qualified if the purpose behind the abandonment is to evade the discharge of duties consisting of preventing. b. c.
Article 239 USURPATION OF LEGISLATIVE POWERS
ELEMENTS: a. That he (a. b. conspiracy and proposal to commit rebellion l. treason b. That his resignation has not yet been accepted.) assumes a power pertaining to the executive authorities. This involves the following crimes: a. This requirement is indispensable because the letter of resignation goes into a process. the law. d.
•
Note: Legislative officers are not liable for usurpation of executive functions
Sigma Rho ( ΣΡ ) reviewers
123
. That he abandons his office to the detriment of the public service. piracy and mutiny on the high seas j. That the offender is an executive or judicial officer. violation of neutrality g. That the offender is a judge. conspiracy to commit sedition p. prosecuting or punishing any of the crimes against national security. disloyalty to public officers m. flight to enemy country i. That the offender is a public officer. or (b.) makes general rules or regulations beyond the scope of his authority or (b. b. conspiracy and proposal to commit conspiracy c. espionage e.

or (b. That he (a. d.) obstruct the execution of any order decision rendered by any judge within his jurisdiction. That the order or suggestion relates to any case or business coming within the exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of justice. That such person lacks the legal qualification therefor. That he continues the proceeding. That he has been lawfully required to refrain from continuing the proceeding. b. c.” To nominate is to guarantee to the appointing power that the person nominated has all the qualifications to the office.
e.Elements and Notes in Criminal Law Book II by RENE CALLANTA Article 241 USURPATION OF JUDICIAL FUNCTIONS
ELEMENTS: a. d. That the offender is a public officer. That the offender knows that his nominee or appointee lacks the qualification at the time he made the nomination or appointment. That the offender is an officer of the executive branch of the government. c.
•
Recommending.
Sigma Rho ( ΣΡ ) reviewers
124
.) assumes judicial powers. b. which is not yet decided. but whether he obeyed or disobeyed the temporary restraining order issued by the higher authority. That the offender is an executive officer. That he nominates or appoints a person to a public office. he is still liable because what is in issue is not the legality of his jurisdiction.
•
Note: Legislative or judicial officers are not liable under this article
Article 244 UNLAWFUL APPOINTMENTS
ELEMENTS: a.
•
Note: A mayor is guilty under this article when he investigates a case while a justice of the peace is in the municipality
Article 242 DISOBEYING REQUEST FOR DISQUALIFICATION
ELEMENTS: a. * Even if the jurisdiction of the offender is later upheld or sustained. That he addresses any order or suggestion to any judicial authority. That the offender is a public officer. That there is a question brought before the proper authority regarding his jurisdiction. b. b.
Article 243 ORDERS OR REQUESTS BY EXECUTIVE OFFICER TO ANY JUDICIAL AUTHORITY
ELEMENTS: a. That a proceeding is pending before such public officer. knowing that the person recommended is not qualified is not a crime
* The word “nominate” is not the same as “recommend. c.

that does not change the crime because the crime seeks to penalize the taking advantage of official duties. daughter.
* Mere indecent solicitation or advances of a woman over whom the public officer exercises a certain influence because the woman is involved in a case where the offender is to make a report of result with superiors or otherwise a case which the offender was investigating. attempted rape may have been committed.Elements and Notes in Criminal Law Book II by RENE CALLANTA
Recommendation on the other hand does not make any guarantee as to the legal fitness of the candidate to public office. That he solicits or makes immoral or indecent advances to a woman. If the woman did not agree and the public officer involved pushed through with the advances. In this case. as the law does not require that the custodian be a man but requires that the offended be a woman. or relative by affinity within the same degree of the prisoner involved. Men have no chastity. or 2. the wife. the demand is for sexual favor. It must be immoral or indecent and done by the public officer taking advantage of his position as one who can help by rendering a favorable decision or unwarranted benefits. daughter. or even if the prisoner may be a man if the jail warden would make the immoral solicitations upon the wife. interested in matters pending before the offender for decision.
Sigma Rho ( ΣΡ ) reviewers
125
. sister. > Mere proposal is sufficient to consummate the crime.
•
Solicit: means to propose earnestly and persistently something unchaste and immoral to a woman
* The word “solicit” means to demand earnestly. b. advantage or preference to a person under his custody. it is submitted that this crime could be committed. c. • The crime is consummated by mere proposal
* It is not necessarily for the offended party to surrender her virtue to consummate the crime. That the offender is a public officer.
•
The mother of the person in the custody of the public officer is not included
* This crime cannot be committed if the warden is a woman and the prisoner is a man. or with respect to which he is required to submit a report to or consult with a superior officer. * This crime is also committed if the woman is a prisoner and the offender is her jail warden or custodian. or 3.
* Even if the woman may have lied with the hearing officer or to the public officer and acceded to him.
• There must be a law providing for the qualifications of a person to be nominated or appointed to a public office
Article 245 ABUSES AGAINST CHASTITY
ELEMENTS: a. under the custody of the offender who is a warden or other public officer directly charged with care and custody of prisoners or person under arrest. * If the warden is also a woman but is a lesbian. That such woman must be – 1. sister or relative within the same degree by affinity of the person in the custody of the offender * Only a lady can be a complainant here so that a gay guard or warden who makes immoral proposals or indecent advances to a male prisoner is not liable under this law. * It is immaterial whether the woman did not agree or agreed to the solicitation.

257). Unintentional abortion (Art.Elements and Notes in Criminal Law Book II by RENE CALLANTA
* Legally. Homicide (Art. favorable compensation terms. 249). 7877 (Anti-Sexual Harassment Act)
> Committed by any person having authority. 252). 10. 262). Discharge of firearms (Art. > Administrative sanctions shall not be a bar to prosecution in the proper courts for unlawful acts of sexual harassment. 266). * You cannot consider the abuse against chastity as absorbed in the rape because the basis of penalizing the acts is different from each other.
Sigma Rho ( ΣΡ ) reviewers
126
. Otherwise. rape aside from abuse against chastity. or who cooperates in the commission. Abortion practiced by a physician or midwife and dispensing of abortives (Art. 254). abuse against chastity is committed. and 20. Infanticide (Art. 9. 8. 265). 266-A). Rape (Art. 264). educational or training institution solidarily. 4. Mutilation (Art. considerations. 259). or granting of scholarship or honors. That the deceased is killed by the accused. 258). 5. Physical injuries inflicted in a tumultuous affray (Art. 19. 11. 251). Slight physical injuries and maltreatment (Art. 255). > Complaints to be handled by a committee on decorum. which shall be determined by rules and regulations on such.
TITLE EIGHT CRIMES AGAINST PERSONS
Crimes against persons 1. benefits. another crime is committed. Giving assistance to suicide (Art. the head of the office. Abortion practiced by the woman herself or by her parents (Art. 14. 2. allowances. Parricide (Art. or payment of a stipend. 18. So the custodian is not supposed to interfere. Administering injurious substances or beverages (Art. 248).
•
Proof of solicitation is not necessary when there is sexual intercourse
Republic Act No. 3. 261). That a person is killed. conditions. DESTRUCTION OF LIFE Article 246 PARRICIDE
ELEMENTS: 1. > Also holds liable any person who directs or induces another to commit any act of sexual harassment. 15. 260). 12. Death caused in a tumultuous affray (Art. a prisoner is an accountability of the government. 6. 263). or otherwise requires any sexual favor from the other regardless of whether the demand. Duel (Art. Serious physical injuries (Art. request or requirement for submission is accepted by the object of the said act (for a passing grade. 246). influence or moral ascendancy over another in a work. * If he forced himself against the will of the woman. Less serious physical injuries (Art. Even if the prisoner may like it. Intentional abortion (Art. requests. training or education environment when he or she demands. Murder (Art. Challenging to a duel (Art. promotions or when the refusal to do so results in a detrimental consequence for the victim). 17. 2. 256). 253). 16. 7. he is not supposed to do that. 13. that is.

). This is immaterial to the crime of parricide. His participation would make him liable for murder or for homicide. he is being punished for the marriage which the law itself authorized him to contract. the offender must be related to the offended party by blood. * Parents and children are not included in the term “ascendants” or “descendants” * The other ascendant or descendant must be legitimate. * The relationship between the offender and the offended party must be legitimate. The same is true with other descendants – that is. * In a ruling by the Supreme Court. daughter of B and C. * The only illegitimate relationship that can bring about parricide is that between parents and illegitimate children as the offender and the offended parties. If the child is less than three days old when killed.
Sigma Rho ( ΣΡ ) reviewers
127
. Otherwise.Elements and Notes in Criminal Law Book II by RENE CALLANTA
3. If D. the illegitimate daughter. except when the offender and the offended party are related as parent and child.
* Except between husband and wife. the offense is infanticide
* That the mother killed her child in order to conceal her dishonor is not mitigating . great grandparents. The illegitimate relationship between the child and the parent renders all relatives after the child in the direct line to be illegitimate too. would kill A. Notes: * The relationship of the offender with the victim is the essential element of the felony
* The relationship must be in the direct line and not in the collateral line. The relationship between A and D is no longer legitimate. Illustration: A is the parent of B. etc. in effect. if a stranger conspired in the commission of the crime. grandchildren. is not guilty of Parricide because in case of other ascendants (grandparents. the father. On the other hand. it was held that if the information did not allege that the accused was legally married to the victim. etc. B married C and they begot a legitimate child D. The rule of conspiracy that the act of one is the act of all does not apply here because of the personal relationship of the offender to the offended party. great grandchildren. or the legitimate spouse of the accused. or child. the crime committed is homicide or murder. In such cases.
* Relationship must be alleged
* In killing a spouse. the crime cannot be parricide anymore because of the intervening illegitimacy. That the deceased is the father. If a Muslim husband could commit this crime more than once. mother or child may be legitimate or illegitimate
* If the offender and the offended party. the relationship with the killer must be legitimate. he could not be convicted of parricide even if the marriage was established during the trial. although related by blood and in the direct line. Hence. he cannot be held liable for parricide. who killed the legitimate father of the latter. the grandmother. This is so because a Catholic man can commit the crime only once. Also. whether legitimate or illegitimate. are separated by an intervening illegitimate relationship. as the case may be. there must be a valid subsisting marriage at the time of the killing. parricide can no longer be committed.
* The child should not be less than 3 days old. relationship shall be appreciated as generic aggravating circumstance.
* A stranger who cooperates in committing parricide is liable for murder or homicide
* Since parricide is a crime of relationship. * The Supreme Court has also ruled that Muslim husbands with several wives can be convicted of parricide only in case the first wife is killed.
* A. There is no parricide if the other wives are killed although their marriage is recognized as valid. or a legitimate other ascendant or other descendant. unlike in the case of infanticide. the information should allege the fact of such valid marriage between the accused and the victim. the crime is infanticide and intent to conceal her dishonor is considered mitigating. an illegitimate son of B. mother.

Article 247 DEATH OR PHYSICAL INJURIES UNDER EXCEPTIONAL CIRCUMSTANCES
Requisites: 1. A legally married person or parent surprises his spouse or daughter (the latter must be under 18 and living with them) in the act of committing sexual intercourse with another person 2. it is enough that circumstances reasonably show that the carnal act is being committed or has been committed * It is not necessary that the spouse actually saw the sexual intercourse being committed. the crime is based on his relationship with B.Elements and Notes in Criminal Law Book II by RENE CALLANTA
Illustration: A spouse of B conspires with C to kill B. He/she kills any or both of them or inflicts upon any or both of them any serious physical injury in the act or immediately thereafter 3. C killed B with treachery. he/she will be guilty of Parricide and Murder or Homicide if the victims were killed. which prescribes a penalty much lower than that provided under Article 246. He has not promoted or facilitated the prostitution of his wife or daughter. It is enough that he/she surprised them under such circumstances that no other reasonable conclusion can be inferred but that a carnal act was being performed or has just been committed. However. the offender will not be punished under Article 246 but under Article 49. The means employed is made known to A and A agreed that the killing will be done by poisoning. Death under exceptional character can not be qualified by either aggravating or mitigating circumstances. insofar as C is concerned. C is the stranger in the relationship.
* If the accused fails to establish the circumstances called for in Article 247.
Sigma Rho ( ΣΡ ) reviewers
128
. As far as A is concerned. far from defining a felony merely grants a privilege or benefit. kills his own father by mistake. treachery becomes a qualifying circumstance. Although the crime committed is parricide. more of an exempting circumstance as the penalty is intended more for the protection of the accused than a punishment. or that he has not consented to the infidelity of the other spouse. The treachery that was employed in killing Bong will only be generic aggravating circumstance in the crime of parricide because this is not one crime that requires a qualifying circumstance. But that same treachery. * Not necessary that the parent be legitimate * Article applies only when the daughter is single * SURPRISE: means to come upon suddenly or unexpectedly * Art 247 is applicable when the accused did not see his spouse in the act sexual intercourse with another person. parricide can be committed by mistake. makes the crime murder. The penalty will not be under Article 246 but under Article 365. It is therefore parricide. he is still liable for parricide because the law does not require knowledge of the relationship * Article 365 expressly provides that parricide can be committed through reckless imprudence. Notes: * Article does not define or penalize a felony
* Article 247. * Similarly.
* Even if the offender did not know that the person he had killed is his son. as a stranger who cooperated in the killing. This is demonstrated in a situation where a person wanting to kill a stranger.

* IMMEDIATELY THEREAFTER: means that the discovery. Moreover. * The benefits of this article do not apply to the person who consented to the infidelity of his spouse or who facilitated the prostitution of his wife. * If the offender surprised a couple in sexual intercourse. pursuit and the killing must all form parts of one continuous act
* The phrase “immediately thereafter” has been interpreted to mean that between the surprising and the killing of the inflicting of the physical injury. second paragraph of Article 365. the accused did not commit murder when he fired at the paramour of his wife. The killing should have been actually motivated by the same blind impulse. there should be no break of time. the article cannot be invoked anymore. the accused is not liable. In other words. in case third persons caught in the crossfire suffer physical injuries. if a third party is injured. the article will not apply anymore. 153 SCRA 735. two persons suffered physical injuries as they were caught in the crossfire when the accused shot the victim. Homicide – through simple negligence. No aberratio ictus because he was acting lawfully. this article may be applied if the mistake of facts is proved. What is required is that the killing is the proximate result of the outrage overwhelming the accused upon the discovery of the infidelity of his spouse. less serious physical injuries through simple negligence. The principle that one is liable for the consequences of his felonious act is not applicable because he is not committing a felony
* In the case of People v. * If there was already a break of time between the sexual act and the killing or inflicting of the injury. Since this is merely an exempting circumstance.
* No criminal liability is incurred when less serious or slight physical injuries are inflicted. killed them. the accused must first be charged with: (1) (2) (3) (4) Parricide – if the spouse is killed.
Article 248 MURDER
ELEMENTS : 1. Murder or homicide – depending on how the killing was done insofar as the paramour or the mistress is concerned. that is. The accused was held liable for negligence under the first part. the law presupposes that the offender regained his reason and therefore.Elements and Notes in Criminal Law Book II by RENE CALLANTA
* The article does not apply where the wife was not surprised in flagrant adultery but was being abused by a man as in this case there will be defense of relation.
* If death results or the physical injuries are serious. Inflicting death under exceptional circumstances is not murder. A complex crime of double frustrated murder was not committed as the accused did not have the intent to kill the two victims. * If the crime committed is less serious physical injuries or slight physical injuries . escape.
* The killing must be the direct by-product of the rage of the accused
* Article 247 does not provide that the victim is to be killed instantly by the accused after surprising his spouse in the act of intercourse. and believing the woman to be his wife. if a third party is killed. That a person was killed.
* Sexual intercourse does not include preparatory acts
* So if the surprising took place before any actual sexual intercourse could be done because the parties are only in their preliminaries. there is no criminal liability. Here. there is criminal liability although the penalty is only destierro.
Sigma Rho ( ΣΡ ) reviewers
129
. Abarca. it must be a continuous process. Physical injuries – through reckless imprudence. * A person who acts under Article 247 is not committing a crime. The banishment is intended more for the protection of the offender rather than a penalty.

on occasion of any of the calamities enumerated in the preceding paragraph. with treachery. or of means or persons to insure or afford impunity. Illustration: A person who is determined to kill resorted to the cover of darkness at nighttime to insure the killing. the crime is murder because the circumstance of “with the aid of armed men” is included in the qualifying circumstances. * The victim must be killed in order to consummate the offense. with cruelty. 530) * Any of the qualifying circumstances must be alleged in the information. or of an earthquake. reward or promise c. methods. poison. aid or armed men. destructive cyclone. with the aid or armed men. Remalante. by means of motor vehicles or with the use of any other means involving great waste or ruin d. in which case. Otherwise. fire. That the killing was attended by any of the following qualifying circumstances a.Elements and Notes in Criminal Law Book II by RENE CALLANTA
2. they cannot be treated or separated as generic aggravating circumstances. Otherwise. epidemic or any other public calamity e.
Sigma Rho ( ΣΡ ) reviewers
130
. (People vs. shipwreck. it would be attempted or frustrated murder * Killing a person with treachery is murder even if there is no intent to kill. the treachery absorbs the same.
Notes: * While the circumstance of “by a band” is not among those enumerated that could qualify killing to murder. fall of airship. or employing means to waken the defense. or employing means to weaken the defense or of means or persons to insure or afford impunity b. form in the execution of the killing which may actually be an aggravating circumstance also. 58 Phil. taking advantage of superior strength. This circumstance involves means. 48) * Treachery and premeditation are inherent in murder with the use of poison Ortega Notes:
In murder. stranding of vessel. it would seem that if the killers constituted a band. (People vs. Nocturnity becomes a means that constitutes treachery and the killing would be murder. any of the following qualifying circumstances is present: (1) Treachery. derailment or assault upon a street car or locomotive. by means of inundation. The killing is not parricide or infanticide. There is treachery when the offender commits any of the crimes against the person employing means. explosion. eruption of a volcano. methods or forms in the execution thereof that tend directly and especially to insure its execution without risk to himself arising from the defense which the offended party might make. with evident premeditation f. they will only be considered as generic aggravating circumstances * When the other circumstances are absorbed or included in one qualifying circumstance. 92 Phil. taking advantage of superior strength. by deliberately and inhumanely augmenting the suffering of the victim or outraging or scoffing at his person or corpse
4. 3. Cagoco. That the accused killed him. in consideration of price.

murder cannot be committed if at the beginning. reward or promises. there is no more treachery but the use of superior strength can be alleged and it also qualifies the killing to murder. Treachery contemplates that the means. he will still be liable for murder if in the manner of committing the felony there was treachery and as a consequence thereof the victim died. Consider now whether such other circumstance qualifies the killing or not. the crime would only be homicide. three young men. If the offender may have not intended to kill the victim but he only wanted to commit a crime against him in the beginning. even if the latter constitutes a qualifying circumstance under Article 248. with both arms and legs around the tree. fire. methods and form in the execution were consciously adopted and deliberately resorted to by the offender. The crime committed was murder. stranding of a vessel. If there are more than one qualifying circumstance alleged in the information for murder. intent to kill becomes irrelevant . some other circumstance may be present. Instead. after the victim had visited the girl. If despite the means resorted to by the offender. by means of a motor vehicle. form in executing the crime deliberately adopted by the offender. the manner adopted by the accused was treacherous and since the victim died as a consequence thereof. Inundation. treachery is not available. So if the killing were at the “spur of the moment”. It is a matter of whether or not the offended party was denied the chance of defending himself. It is important only if the victim did not die to determine if the felony is physical injury or attempted or frustrated homicide. treachery qualifies the killing to murder. there is treachery. One might think the killing is homicide unless nocturnity is considered as constituting treachery. resented the fact that the victim continued to visit a girl in their neighborhood despite the warning they gave him. One attendant qualifying circumstance is enough. The treachery must be alleged in the information. The accused left not knowing that the victim died. The accused deprived the victim of the chance to defend himself when the latter was tied to a tree. shipwreck. But if the victim was able to put up an unsuccessful resistance. the same can not qualify the killing to murder. This is based on the rule that a person committing a felony shall be liable for the consequences thereof although different from that which he intended. explosion. methods. If the offended was denied the chance to defend himself.
Sigma Rho ( ΣΡ ) reviewers
131
. The essence of treachery is that the offended party was denied the chance to defend himself because of the means. it is not one of those which qualify a homicide to murder. fall of an airship. and were not merely incidental to the killing. So long as the means. although unsuccessful. So one evening. there was no intent to kill. they seized and tied him to a tree. Treachery is a circumstance referring to the manner of committing the crime. only one circumstance will qualify the killing to murder and the other circumstances will be taken as generic. Generally. Illustration: If the offender used superior strength and the victim was denied the chance to defend himself. there is treachery. There was no risk to the accused arising from the defense by the victim.although originally. When the victim is already dead. To be considered qualifying. even if there was no intent to kill. was established during the trial.Elements and Notes in Criminal Law Book II by RENE CALLANTA
But if the aggravating circumstance of nocturnity is considered by itself. poison. (2) (3) In consideration of price. the particular circumstance must be alleged in the information . Although what was initially intended was physical injury. in which case the crime is murder. The accused can only be convicted of homicide. the offended had no intent to kill because the qualifying circumstances must be resorted to with a view of killing the offended party. or with the use of other means involving great waste and ruin. They thought they would give him a lesson by whipping him with branches of gumamela until the victim fell unconscious. Illustration: The accused. If what was alleged was not proven and instead another circumstance. the offended was able to put up a defense. the crime is murder -. derailment or assault upon a street car or locomotive. not alleged. even though the victim was denied the chance to defend himself because of the suddenness of the attack. methods and form in the execution is deliberately adopted.

epidemic or any other public calamity. Pugay and Samson. or murder. Yet. Illustration: Two people engaged in a quarrel and they hacked each other. All were uproariously happy. The following are holdings of the Supreme Court with respect to the crime of murder: (1) (2) Killing of a child of tender age is murder qualified by treachery because the weakness of the child due to his tender age results in the absence of any danger to the aggressor. Having gotten bored with their form of entertainment. even though it was inflicted or was committed when the victim was already dead. It was held that Pugay was guilty of homicide through reckless imprudence. the accused Samson lit him up. (People vs. If the primordial criminal intent of the offender is to kill and fire was only used as a means to do so. it does not qualify killing to Murder unless the use of fire was employed to kill the victim. Hence. if the killer tried to dismember the different parts of the body of the victim. or an earthquake. Under Article 14. a higher penalty will be applied. must be evidence to that effect. Evident premeditation. reward or promise. the crime is only murder. if without the premeditation the inductor would not have induced the other to commit the act but not as regards the one induced. the primordial criminal intent of the offender is considered. somebody within the premises is killed. 85 Phil. there was a town fiesta and the two accused were at the town plaza with their companions. Guillen. and
* When the actual victim turns out to be different from the intended victim. the crime is arson with homicide. 307)
(6) Cruelty. indicative of an intention to scoff at or decry or humiliate the corpse of the victim. aside from cruelty. a 25 year old retard walking nearby and they made him dance by tickling his sides with a piece of wood. That somebody died during such fire would not bring about murder because there is no intent to kill in the mind of the offender.Elements and Notes in Criminal Law Book II by RENE CALLANTA
The only problem insofar as the killing by fire is concerned is whether it would be arson with homicide.
Sigma Rho ( ΣΡ ) reviewers
132
. The retard died. It was merely a part of their fun making but because their acts were felonious. the group saw the victim. the generic aggravating circumstance of cruelty requires that the victim be alive. slept in the same place together. acts were committed which would decry or scoff the corpse of the victim. When a person is killed by fire. Then. any act that would amount to scoffing or decrying the corpse of the victim will qualify the killing to murder. apparently drenched with drink. shrieking human torch. The crime becomes murder. It goes beyond that because even if the victim is already a corpse when the acts deliberately augmenting the wrong done to him were committed. accused Pugay went and got a can of gasoline and poured it all over the retard. by deliberately and inhumanly augmenting the suffering of the victim. in murder. one killing the other. The victim and the accused Pugay were friends and. they are criminally liable. Samson only guilty of homicide. eruption of volcano. premeditation is not aggravating. when the cruel wounds were inflicted and. or outraging or scoffing at his person or corpse. Then. 167 SCRA 439. then what would have murder because this circumstance is recognized under Article 248.
* When killing was accomplished “by means of fire” alleged in the information. However. at times. Cruelty includes the situation where the victim is already dead and yet. If the primordial criminal intent of the offender is to destroy property with the use of pyrotechnics and incidentally. Evident premeditation is absorbed in price. the crime is homicide.
In People v. therefore. Up to that point. He intended only to destroy property. This is single indivisible crime penalized under Article 326. making him a frenzied. the killing is still qualified to murder although the acts done no longer amount to cruelty. destructive cyclone. which is death as a consequence of arson. this is not actually limited to cruelty. But this is not a complex crime under Article 48. However. (4) (5) On occasion of any of the calamities enumerated in the preceding paragraph c. with the mitigating circumstance of no intention to commit so grave a wrong. There was no animosity between the two accused and the victim such that it cannot be said that they resort to fire to kill him.

Where one of the accused. such did not convert the offense into kidnapping with murder. who were charged with murder. there must be satisfactory evidence of (1) the fact of death and (2) the identity of the victim
Distinction between homicide and physical injuries: In attempted or frustrated homicide. That the accused killed him without any justifying circumstances. Treachery is inherent in poison. and the child instantly died because of suffocation. Notes:
* Homicide is the unlawful killing of a person not constituting murder. and not the intent of the act.
* Intent to kill is conclusively presumed when death resulted. to conceal his body and then demand money before discovery of the body. However. That a person was killed. she also should be convicted of murder but the relationship should be appreciated as aggravating.
Article 249 HOMICIDE
ELEMENTS: 1. The accused was well aware that the child could be suffocated to death in a few minutes after she left. That the accused had the intention to kill. Where the accused housemaid gagged a three year old boy. the victim died. In physical injuries. That the killing was not attended by any of the qualifying circumstances of murder. with stockings. was the wife of the deceased but here relationship to the deceased was not alleged in the information. there is intent to kill. murder and not kidnapping with murder is committed. 4. there is none. Killing of the victims hit by hand grenade thrown at them is murder qualified by explosion not by treachery. or by that of parricide or infanticide. The following are holdings of the Supreme Court with respect to the crime of homicide: (1) (2) Physical injuries are included as one of the essential elements of frustrated homicide. If the deceased received two wounds from two persons acting independently of each other and the wound inflicted by either could have caused death. If there is no showing that the accused intended to deprive their victims of their liberty for some time and there being no appreciable interval between their being taken and their being shot. both of them are liable for the death of the victim and each of them is guilty of homicide. if as a result of the physical injuries inflicted.
Sigma Rho ( ΣΡ ) reviewers
133
. Hence. parricide or infanticide. Ransom was only a part of the diabolical scheme to murder the child. the crime will be homicide because the law punishes the result. evidence of intent to kill is required only in attempted or frustrated homicide * In all crimes against persons in which the death of the victim is an element. which is presumed. 3. son of her master. placed him in a box with head down and legs upward and covered the box with some sacks and other boxes.Elements and Notes in Criminal Law Book II by RENE CALLANTA
(3 (4) (5) Abuse of superior strength is inherent in and comprehended by the circumstance of treachery or forms part of treachery. and then the accused demanded ransom from the parents. 2.
(6) (7)
* The essence of kidnapping or serious illegal detention is the actual confinement or restraint of the victim or deprivation of his liberty.

Elements and Notes in Criminal Law Book II by RENE CALLANTA
(3) If the injuries were mortal but were only due to negligence. (Cortez vs. * The shooting of a peace officer who was fully aware of the risks in pursuing the malefactors when done in a spur of the moment is only Homicide.
Common misconception on the meaning of corpus delicti. the crime is Homicide. 255 SCRA 514). Corpus delicti means body of the crime. In all crimes against persons in which the death of the victim is an element of the crime. 3. all persons who used violence upon the person of the victim
Sigma Rho ( ΣΡ ) reviewers
134
. 162 SCRA
139)
Article 250 PENALTY FOR FRUSTRATED PARRICIDE. there must be proof of the fact of death and identity of the victim. 4. That they did not compose groups organized for the common purpose of assaulting and attacking each other reciprocally. 6. person/s who inflicted serious physical injuries b. That there be several persons. Where the intent to kill is not manifest. That these several persons quarreled and assaulted one another in a confused and tumultuous manner. it is not possible to have a crime of frustrated homicide through reckless imprudence. 2. Court of Appeals. If he intentionally hit his opponent on that part of his body causing the death. all are liable for the victim’s death. there is no tumultuous affray Persons liable are: a. it is Homicide Through Reckless Imprudence if the latter died as a result. That someone was killed in the course of the affray. That it cannot be ascertained who actually killed the deceased. 5. (People vs. Porras.
* If a boxer killed his opponent in a boxing bout duly licensed by the Government without any violation of the governing rules and regulations. If he hit his opponent below the belt without any intention to do so. there is no Homicide to speak of. the crime committed has been generally considered as physical injuries and not attempted or frustrated murder or homicide. It does not refer to the body of the murdered person. That the person or persons who inflicted serious physical injuries or who used violence can be identified. MURDER OR HOMICIDE Article 251 DEATH IN A TUMULTOUS AFFRAY
ELEMENTS: 1. Notes: * Tumultuous affray exists when at least 4 persons take part in it * When there are 2 identified groups of men who assaulted each other. When several assailants not acting in conspiracy inflicted wounds on a victim but it cannot be determined who inflicted which would which caused the death of the victim. if it is not known who inflicted serious physical injuries on the deceased.
(4) (5)
* Note that while it is possible to have a crime of homicide through reckless imprudence. the crime committed will be serious physical injuries through reckless imprudence as the element of intent to kill in frustrated homicide is incompatible with negligence or imprudence.

If there is a conspiracy. 3. or who inflicted the serious physical injury. they will be the ones to be held liable. 2. If nobody could still be traced to have employed violence upon the victim. a free-for-all. * It is not a tumultuous affray which brings about the crime. but the person or persons who used violence are known. That a participant or some participants thereof suffer serious physical injuries or physical injuries of a less serious nature only. the conditions are also the same. That all those who appear to have used violence upon the person of the offended party are known. it could be tumultuous disturbance. the injured party in the crime of physical injuries inflicted in tumultuous affray must be one or some of those involved in the quarrel.
* As long as it cannot be determined who killed the victim. Because if he is known but only his identity is not known. that the person responsible therefor cannot be identified. The Revised Penal Code sets priorities as to who may be liable for the death or physical injury in tumultuous affray: (1) (2) (3) The persons who inflicted serious physical injury upon the victim. The physical injury should be serious or less serious and resulting from a tumultuous affray.
Article 252 PHYSICAL INJURIES INFLICTED IN A TUMULTOUS AFFRAY
ELEMENTS: 1. The crimes committed might be disturbance of public order. which should not involve organized group. It is necessary that the very person who caused the death can not be known. the offender shall be prosecuted in the ordinary course of law. * If the physical injury sustained is only slight.
* In physical injuries caused in a tumultuous affray. it could be malicious mischief. that there is a tumultuous affray as referred to in the preceding article. to such an extent that it would not be possible to identify who the killer is if death results. Instead.
Sigma Rho ( ΣΡ ) reviewers
135
. this is considered as inherent in a tumultuous affray. To be considered death in a tumultuous affray. nobody will answer. all of those persons who inflicted serious physical injuries will be collectively answerable for the death of that fellow. it is the inability to ascertain actual perpetrator. this crime is not committed.Elements and Notes in Criminal Law Book II by RENE CALLANTA
* If those who actually killed the victim can be determined. So anyone who may have employed violence will answer for such serious or less serious physical injury. * Unlike in Article 251.
* The person killed in the affray need not be one of the participants. and someone who is injured or killed because of the fight. or if property was destroyed. where the victim need not be one of the participants. not that he can not be identified. and those who inflicted serious or less serious or slight physical injuries shall be punished for said corresponding offenses provided no conspiracy is established with the killers. 4.
* Note that in slight physical injuries is inflicted in the tumultuous affray and the identity of the offender is established. If they could not be known.
TUMULTUOUS AFFRAY simply means a commotion in a tumultuous and confused manner. The offended party cannot complain if he cannot identify who inflicted the slight physical injuries on him. or if participants are armed. the provisions of this article will not be observed. then he will be charged for the crime of homicide or murder under a fictitious name and not death in a tumultuous affray. But you do not have a crime of physical injuries resulting from a tumultuous affray if the physical injury is only slight. then anyone who may have employed violence on that person will answer for his death. there must be: (1) (2) a quarrel.

The accused is liable if he kills the victim.) or whatever manner of positive and direct cooperation (intellectual aid. The victim must persistently induce the offender to end his life. 2. poison. Euthanasia/mercy-killing is the practice of painlessly putting to death a person suffering from some incurable disease.
* A person who attempts to commit suicide is not criminally liable
* In this crime. the fetus in her womb was expelled. That the offender has no intention to kill that person. the principal actor is the person committing the suicide.
Sigma Rho ( ΣΡ ) reviewers
136
. This does not contemplate euthanasia or mercy killing where the crime is murder. that the offender discharges a firearm against or at another person. * Both in euthanasia and suicide. his sweetheart.
* Penalty is mitigated if suicide is not successful * Even if the suicide did not materialize. > He becomes a co-conspirator in the crime of inciting to sedition. In giving assistance to suicide.). In this case. otherwise the article does not apply. There can be no qualifying circumstance because the determination to die must come from the victim.
The following are holdings of the Supreme Court with respect to this crime: (1) (2) The crime is frustrated if the offender gives the assistance by doing the killing himself as firing upon the head of the victim but who did not die due to medical assistance. the person giving assistance to suicide is also liable but the penalty shall be one or two degrees lower depending on whether it is frustrated or attempted suicide. etc. * In mercy killing. because of a suicide pact. Lending his assistance to another to commit suicide to the extent of doing the killing himself • Notes:
* Giving assistance to suicide means giving means (arms.
Article 254 DISCHARGE OF FIREARMS
ELEMENTS: 1.
* A pregnant woman who tried to commit suicide by means of poison but instead of dying. but not of giving assistance to suicide because the assistance must be given to one who is really determined to commit suicide. the intention must be for the person who is asking the assistance of another to commit suicide. as when he just wanted to have a picture taken of him to impress upon the world that he is committing suicide because he is not satisfied with the government. is not liable for abortion * Assistance to suicide is different from mercy-killing . Whoever would heed his advice is not really giving assistance to suicide but doing the killing himself. Assisting another to commit suicide. The person attempting to commit suicide is not liable if he survives. * If the intention is not to commit suicide. suggestions regarding the mode of committing suicide. whether the suicide is consummated or not 2. the crime is held to be inciting to sedition. covered by Article 253. which is reclusion temporal. if with consent. the penalty is similar to that of homicide. the person does not want to die. the intention to the end life comes from the victim himself. A doctor who resorts to euthanasia may be held liable for murder
* If the person does the killing himself. if without consent.Elements and Notes in Criminal Law Book II by RENE CALLANTA Article 253 GIVING ASSISTANCE TO SUICIDE
• Acts punishable: 1. etc. the victim is not in a position to commit suicide.

otherwise. the act is not punished under this article
* If the firearm is directed at a person and the trigger was pressed but did not fire. A. he shall suffer the penalty prescribed for parricide. firing a gun against the house of the offended party at random. not knowing in what part of the house the people were.Elements and Notes in Criminal Law Book II by RENE CALLANTA
• Notes:
* This crime cannot be committed through imprudence because it requires that the discharge must be directed at another. That a child was killed. the crime may constitute alarm and scandal. gave birth to a child. That the accused killed the said child. 3.
(2)
* The gun used in the crime must be licensed. On the other hand. To conceal her dishonor. the proper qualification for the offense is infanticide * Even if the killer is the mother or the father or the legitimate grandparents. In either case. * If the discharge is not directed at a person. or if less serious physical injury. the purpose of the offender is only to intimidate or frighten the offended party * Intent to kill is negated by the fact that the distance between the victim and the offender is 200 yards * A person can be held liable for discharge even if the gun was not pointed at the offended party when it fired for as long as it was initially aimed at or against the offended party
The following are holdings of the Supreme Court with respect to this crime: (1) If serious physical injuries resulted from discharge. the crime is still Infanticide and not Parricide. The penalty however. is that for Parricide. Notes: * When the offender is the father. in addition to the crime punished under this article. If the offender is any other person. That the deceased child was less than three days (72 hours) of age.
Illustration: An unmarried woman. C agreed and killed the child B by burying the child somewhere. * Usually. Firing a gun at a person even if merely to frighten him constitutes illegal discharge of firearm. accused may also be held liable for illegal possession of firearm under Republic Act No.
Sigma Rho ( ΣΡ ) reviewers
137
. mother or legitimate ascendant. the crime committed is the complex crime of serious physical injury with illegal discharge of firearm. A conspired with C to dispose of the child. the complex crime of less serious physical injury with illegal discharge of firearm will apply. If the firearm is not discharged at a person. or the person using the firearm must be authorized to carry the same.
* A discharge towards the house of the victim is not discharge of firearm.
Article 255 INFANTICIDE
ELEMENTS: 1. 1866 as amended by Republic Act No. the penalty is that for murder.
* The offender must shoot at another with any firearm without intention of killing him. B. 2. it is only alarm under art 155. the crime is frustrated discharge of firearm. 8294.

If the child is less than three days old when killed. That the abortion is intended. In such a case. such fact is only mitigating * The delinquent mother who claims that she committed the offense to conceal the dishonor must be of good reputation. 3. The fact that the killing was done to conceal her dishonor will not mitigate the criminal liability anymore because concealment of dishonor in killing the child is not mitigating in parricide. It is not parricide because he is not related to the victim. had it not been killed. either in the womb or after having been expelled therefrom. the crime committed is not infanticide but abandonment under Article 276. 4. This is so because there is difficulty of determining whether the crime committed is infanticide or abortion. otherwise if it can survive. So fetus becomes a person by the legal fact of birth. That violence is exerted. the crime of A is parricide. Hence. * There is no infanticide when the child was born dead. or drugs or beverages administered. is killed within 24 hours from the time the umbilical cord is cut. Ortega Notes:
Acts punished 1. In such a situation. the crime of the co-conspirator C is murder. It merely lowers the penalty. That there is a pregnant woman.
* When infanticide is committed by the mother or maternal grandmother in order to conceal the dishonor. if she is a prostitute. If such fetus is killed within the 24-hour period. So. the court may avail of expert testimony in order to help it arrive at a conclusion. If the child is abandoned without any intent to kill and death results as a consequence. we have to determine if it would have survived or it would have died nonetheless.
Sigma Rho ( ΣΡ ) reviewers
138
. > A legal problem occurs when a fetus having an intra-uterine life of less than 7 months. infanticide through imprudence is not committed because the purpose of concealing the dishonor is incompatible with the absence of malice in culpable felonies. the fetus dies.Elements and Notes in Criminal Law Book II by RENE CALLANTA
If the child was killed when the age of the child was three days old and above already. The Civil Code provides that. Using any violence upon the person of the pregnant woman. the crime would be infanticide. or although born alive it could not sustain
an independent life when it was killed * In our study of persons and family relations. she is not entitled to a lesser penalty because she has no honor to conceal
* Concealment of dishonor is not an element of infanticide. both the mother and the stranger commits infanticide because infanticide is not predicated on the relation of the offender to the offended party but on the age of the child. or any other act of the accused.
Article 256 INTENTIONAL ABORTION
ELEMENTS: 1. If the crime committed by A is parricide because the age of the child is three days old or above. we have learned that birth determines personality. born alive. the crime committed is abortion. if the fetus had an intra-uterine life of less than seven (7) months. concealment of dishonor as a motive for the mother to have the child killed is mitigating. 2. * If the purpose of the mother is to conceal her dishonor. if it is shown that the infant cannot survive within 24 hours. That as a result of the use of violence or drugs or beverages upon her. or that the accused otherwise acts upon such pregnant woman. it will be considered born only if it survives 24 hours after the umbilical cord is cut.

If she does. He then acquires a personality separate from the mother. Before the umbilical cord is cut. the fetus must be dead. the crime would be an impossible crime of abortion. if not killed. it must survive at least 24 hours after the umbilical cord is cut for it to be considered born. it is still a fetus and not a person. and the pregnant woman consented for the purpose of concealing her dishonor. the crime committed is abortion not infanticide.
Article 257 UNINTENTIONAL ABORTION
ELEMENTS:
Sigma Rho ( ΣΡ ) reviewers
139
. Therefore. It will also mitigate the liability of the maternal grandparent of the victim – the mother of the pregnant woman – if the abortion was done with the consent of the pregnant woman. that circumstance will not mitigate her criminal liability. and one who looks for a physician to make his sweetheart abort is an accomplice. if not killed. A person is considered born at the time when the umbilical cord is cut. Thus. would have survived beyond 24 hours. In consummated abortion. Article 41 of the Civil Code provides that if the fetus had an intra-uterine life of less than seven months. the penalty is the same as that imposed upon the woman who practiced the abortion upon herself . but without using violence. or either of them. > Under the Article 40 of the Civil Code.Elements and Notes in Criminal Law Book II by RENE CALLANTA
2. the child was killed. would not have survived beyond 24 hours. Illustration: A mother delivered an offspring which had an intra-uterine life of seven months. But if those who performed the abortion are the parents of the pregnant woman. > If the abortion was done by the mother of the pregnant woman without the consent of the woman herself. > Abortion is not a crime against the woman but against the fetus. If mother as a consequence of abortion suffers death or physical injuries. not dead as abortion did not result despite the employment of adequate and sufficient means to make the pregnant woman abort. the crime is abortion because what was killed was a fetus only. The physician will be punished under Article 259 of the Revised Penal Code. serious physical injuries. etc. If it could be shown that the child. if it is killed. the crime will be homicide. If it could be shown that had the umbilical cord been cut. without the consent of the woman. > In abortion. he would not try an abortion. > In intentional abortion. he is liable for an impossible crime if the woman suffers no physical injury. 3. with the consent of the pregnant woman. Acting. you have a complex crime of murder or physical injuries and abortion.) Acting (by administering drugs or beverages). even if it was done to conceal dishonor. the offender must have known of the pregnancy for otherwise. that child. therefore. If the fetus has been delivered but it could not subsist by itself. (By administering drugs or beverages upon such pregnant woman without her consent. > If the woman turns out not to be pregnant and someone performs an abortion upon her. > One who persuades her sister to abort is a co-principal. the concealment of dishonor as a motive of the mother to commit the abortion upon herself is mitigating. the crime is infanticide because that conceived child is already considered born. If the means are not sufficient or adequate. It is abortion if the victim is not viable but remains to be a fetus. birth determines personality. > But even though the umbilical cord has been cut.
> Abortion is the violent expulsion of a fetus from the maternal womb. Distinction between infanticide and abortion It is infanticide if the victim is already a person less that three days old or 72 hours and is viable or capable of living separately from the mother’s womb. the offender must know of the pregnancy because the particular criminal intention is to cause an abortion. > Frustrated abortion is committed if the fetus that is expelled is viable and.

then the same should be applied but the penalty will not be the penalty provided under Article 257. only the abortion is unintended. if the circumstances of the case justifies the application of the other means of committing a felony (like culpa). nonetheless. Abortion resulted and B died.Elements and Notes in Criminal Law Book II by RENE CALLANTA
1. That as a result of the violence that fetus dies. In other words. the felonious act of pushing is the proximate cause of the unintentional abortion. 3. Illustration: A quarrel ensued between A. Carnaso. there is no liability. the Supreme Court held that knowledge of pregnancy is required in unintentional abortion.DEBATABLE
In US v. and logical consequences of his felonious acts although it may be different from that which is intended. That the violence is intentionally exerted. 15 Phil. The act of employing violence or physical force upon the woman is already a felony. husband. the Supreme Court said that knowledge of pregnancy of the offended party is not necessary. A became so angry that he struck B. * While there is no intention on the part of the accused to cause an abortion. the crime committed is light threats. Instead. wife. with a soft drink bottle on the hip. * If the pregnant woman was killed by violence by her husband. act of self-defense. decided on April 7. the offender is liable for unintentional abortion. If the act of violence is not felonious. the violence that he employs on the pregnant woman must be intentional. the crime committed is the complex crime of parricide with unlawful abortion. nevertheless. the crime committed is not unintentional abortion because there is no violence. In People v. the offender shall be subject to the penalty prescribed for simple or reckless imprudence under Article 365. 391. and B. but there is knowledge of the woman’s pregnancy. 1964. Notes:
* Unintentional abortion requires physical violence inflicted deliberately and voluntarily by a third person upon the person of the pregnant woman. Correspondingly.
* Unintentional abortion can also be committed through negligence
* Unintentional abortion may be committed through negligence as it is enough that the use of violence be voluntary. That there is a pregnant woman. 2. if not only physical injuries were sustained but abortion also resulted. natural. * If the pregnant woman aborted because of intimidation.
* Take note that while unintentional abortion appears to be a crime that should be committed with deliberate intent because of the requirement that the violence employed on the victim must be intentional. 4. It is not material if offender knew about the woman being pregnant or not. Jeffry. Mere intimidation is not enough unless the degree of intimidation already approximates violence. Criticism: Under Article 4. That violence is used upon such pregnant woman without intending an abortion. If the act of violence is not felonious. Illustration: The act of pushing another causing her to fall is a felonious act and could result in physical injuries. however. * The accused can only be held liable if he knew that the woman was pregnant
. and there is no knowledge of the woman’s pregnancy. paragraph 1 of the Revised Penal Code. either in the womb or after having been expelled therefrom. any person committing a felony is criminally liable for all the direct. who was then pregnant. that is.
Sigma Rho ( ΣΡ ) reviewers
140
.

with her consent. causes or assists in causing the abortion. This is not so for art 258
Article 259 ABORTION PRACTICED BY A PHYSICIAN OR MIDWIFE AND DISPENSING OF ABORTIVES
ELEMENTS: 1. Notes: * Liability of the pregnant woman is mitigated if the purpose is to conceal her dishonor. That there is a pregnant woman who has suffered an abortion. what are the crimes committed? The crimes committed are (1) intentional abortion. it must be to bring about an abortion. That the abortion is intended.
Article 258 ABORTION PRACTICED BY THE WOMAN HERSELF OR BY HER PARENTS
ELEMENTS : 1. the crime will be intentional abortion. 2. the act of trying to commit suicide is not a felony under the Revised Penal Code. any of her parents. as amended. who must be a physician or midwife. arts 256 and 257 does not apply
Questions & Answers 1. there is no Mitigation for the parents of the pregnant women even if their purpose is to conceal their daughter’s dishonor * In infanticide. 2. 3. with her consent for the purpose of concealing her dishonor. 3. That the abortion is caused by – a. If it was the woman doing the violence upon herself. parents can avail of the mitigating circumstance of concealing the dishonor of their daughter. The one penalized in suicide is the one giving assistance and not the person trying to commit suicide. any other person.Elements and Notes in Criminal Law Book II by RENE CALLANTA
* If there is no intention to cause abortion and neither was violence exerted. That there is a pregnant woman who has suffered an abortion. or c. and therefore. That the offender. Is she liable for unintentional abortion? No. However. the pregnant woman herself b. 2. What is contemplated in unintentional abortion is that the force or violence must come from another. A pregnant woman decided to commit suicide. 6425 (The Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972). She jumped out of a window of a building but she landed on a passerby. and (2) violation of the Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972. where the woman tried to commit suicide. She did not die but an abortion followed. In this case. That the abortion is intended.
Sigma Rho ( ΣΡ ) reviewers
141
. If the abortive drug used in abortion is a prohibited drug or regulated drug under Presidential Decree No.

If one was killed. What is punished is the act of dispensing an abortive without the proper prescription . Killing one’s adversary in a duel 2. both will be liable for the crime of duel as principals by direct participation. who make the selection of arms and fix all the other conditions of the fight * If death results. or both combatants in any other cases
2. Notes: DUEL: a formal or regular combat previously concerted between 2 parties in the presence of 2 or more seconds of lawful age on each side. he is liable as an accomplice
* If the abortion is produced by a physician to save the life of the mother. Making a combat although no physical injuries have been inflicted Persons liable: 1.
Sigma Rho ( ΣΡ ) reviewers
142
. Accomplices – as seconds
* The person who killed or injured his adversary. The seconds will be held liable as accomplices. This is known as a therapeutic abortion. This is a case of therapeutic abortion which is done out of a state of necessity.” if only physical injuries is inflicted. Illustration: A woman who is pregnant got sick. That said physician or midwife takes advantage of his or her scientific knowledge or skill. left the place at the same time and pursuant to their agreement. the crime committed would be Homicide.Elements and Notes in Criminal Law Book II by RENE CALLANTA
4. after a verbal heated argument in a bar. the facts do not constitute the crime of dueling since there were no seconds who fixed the conditions of the fight in a more or less formal manner. * If the accused and the deceased. Principals – person who killed or inflicted physical injuries upon his adversary. But abortion without medical necessity to warrant it is punishable even with the consent of the woman or her husband. there is no liability. the law will disregard the “intent to kill. Inflicting upon the adversary serious physical injuries 3. There must be no other practical or less harmful means of saving the life of the mother to make the killing justified. If both survive. paragraph 4. The doctor administered a medicine which resulted in Abortion. the requisites under Article 11. Notes: * It is not necessary that the pharmacist knew that the abortive would be used to cause abortion. Therefore. It is not necessary that the abortive be actually used * If the pharmacist knew that the abortive would be used to cause abortion and abortion results. of the Revised Penal Code must be present. went to the plaza to fight each other to death with knives which they bought on the way.
Question & Answer What is the liability of a physician who aborts the fetus to save the life of the mother? None. The crime committed was unintentional abortion through negligence or imprudence.
Article 260 RESPONSIBILITY OF PARTICIPANTS IN A DUEL
Acts punished: 1. the penalty is the same as that for homicide * While the agreement is to fight to the death. The crime will not be classified as attempted or frustrated homicide.

What is committed is the crime of light threats under Article 285. Challenging another to a duel 2. Scoffing at or decrying another publicly for having refused to accept a challenge to fight a duel Persons liable: 1. lopping. the crime committed will only be grave or light threat as the case may be. without the challenger having in mind a formal combat to be agreed upon with the assistance of seconds as contemplated under the law. totally or partially. Inciting another to give or accept a challenge to a duel 3. other than the essential organ for reproduction. the crime of challenging to a duel is not committed . it will be considered as mutilation of the second kind MAYHEM: refers to any other intentional mutilation
Sigma Rho ( ΣΡ ) reviewers
143
. * If what was cut off was a reproductive organ. Instigators * If the challenge is only to fight. * This cannot be committed through criminal negligence. You are a coward if you do not come down”. Otherwise. to deprive him of that part of the body Elements: 1. Intentionally making another mutilation. i.e. Intentionally mutilating another by depriving him. mutilation of organs necessary for generation 2. paragraph 1 of the Revised Penal Code. We will see whose intestines will come out. If there is no intent to deprive victim of particular part of body. of some essential organ for reproduction 2. This is an obsolete provision. Mutilation is caused purposely and deliberately Notes:
MUTILATION is the lopping or clipping off of some part of the body.e.
* In the first kind of mutilation.
PHYSICAL INJURIES Article 262 MUTILATION
Kinds of Mutilation 1.Elements and Notes in Criminal Law Book II by RENE CALLANTA
* There is no such crime nowadays because people hit each other even without entering into any preconceived agreement. clipping off any part of the body of the offended party.
Illustration: If one challenges another to a duel by shouting “Come down. the crime is only serious physical injury.
Article 261 CHALLENGING TO A DUEL
Acts punishable: 1. There be a castration i. * The intent to deliberately cut off the particular part of the body that was removed from the offended party must be established. Mutilation includes any part of the human body that is not susceptible to grow again. let us measure your prowess. the penalty is much higher than that for homicide. * The common mistake is to associate this with the reproductive organs only. Challenger 2. the castration must be made purposely. Olympia.

Injured person – a.
* Serious physical injuries may be committed through reckless imprudence or simple imprudence * There must be no intent to kill IMPOTENT should include inability to copulate and sterility BLINDNESS requires lost of vision in both eyes. The offended party caught hold of the edge of the blade of his bolo and wounded himself. loses the use of any such member c. Injured person becomes ill or incapacitated for labor for more than 30 days (but not more than 90 days) Notes:
* The crime of physical injuries is a crime of result because under our laws the crime of physical injuries is based on the gravity of the injury sustained. Injured person – a. loses any other member of his body c. while conversing with the offended party. Mere weakness in vision is not contemplated Loss of power to hear must involve both ears. a hand. becomes incapacitated for the work in which he had been habitually engaged 3. there can be no attempted or frustrated stage thereof. Beating 3. * The reason why there is no attempted or frustrated physical injuries is because the crime of physical injuries is determined on the gravity of the injury. It was held that since the accused did not wound. imbecile. becomes ill or incapacitated for the performance of the work in which he had been habitually engaged in for more than 90 days 4. beat or assault the offended party. loses the use thereof d. impotent or blind 2. he can not be guilty of serious physical injuries. loses the use of speech or the power to hear or to smell. As long as the injury is not there. So this crime is always consummated. Assaulting 4. loses an eye. the accused.
What are serious physical injuries: 1. Otherwise. Administering injurious substances
* In one case. Injured person becomes insane. Wounding 2.Elements and Notes in Criminal Law Book II by RENE CALLANTA
Article 263 SERIOUS PHYSICAL INJURIES
How Committed 1. it will be considered as serious physical injuries under par 3
Sigma Rho ( ΣΡ ) reviewers
144
. becomes deformed b. foot. arm or leg b. drew the latter’s bolo from its scabbard.

there must be evidence of the length of that period. it would not be conspicuous and visible * The loss of 3 incisors is a visible deformity. Loss of one incisor is not. all that is required is illness or incapacity. a front tooth is considered as a member of the body. You only consider the period when the offended party is rendered incapacitated for labor. Par 3 on the other hand. permanent and definite abnormality. loss of the lobule of the ear is only a deformity * Loss of the index and middle fingers is either a deformity or loss of a member. the illness of the offended party may be considered as lasting more than 30 days. It must be conspicuous and visible. (2) Between less serious physical injuries and serious physical injuries. serious physical injuries resulting from excessive chastisement by parents is not qualified serious physical injuries Ortega Notes:
Classification of physical injuries: (1) Between slight physical injuries and less serious physical injuries. the physical injuries would already qualify as less serious physical injuries. not medical attendance > In determining incapacity. loss of one tooth which impaired appearance is a deformity * Deformity by loss of teeth refers to injury which cannot be impaired by the action of the nature * Loss of both outer ears constitutes deformity and also loss of the power to hear. you do not consider the period of medical treatment. Not curable by natural means or by nature. if the scar is usually covered by a dress. Consider the duration of healing and treatment. The significant part here is between slight physical injuries and less serious physical injuries.Elements and Notes in Criminal Law Book II by RENE CALLANTA
Loss of use of hand or incapacity of usual work in par 2 must be permanent * Par 2 refers to principal members of the body. the offense will only be considered as slight physical injuries * There is no incapacity if the injured party could still engage in his work although less effectively than before * Serious physical injuries is qualified when the crime is committed against the same persons enumerated in the article on parricide or when it is attended by any of the circumstances defining the crime of murder. other than a principal member DEFORMITY: means physical ugliness. you have a duration of one to nine days if slight physical injuries. the physical injuries are only considered less serious because for
Sigma Rho ( ΣΡ ) reviewers
145
. even though the treatment continued beyond 30 days. but if the offended party is still incapacitated for labor beyond nine days. Thus. You will consider not only the healing duration of the injury but also the medical attendance required to treat the injury. the injured party must have an avocation at the time of the injury. So the healing duration may be one to nine days. The fact that there was medical attendance for that period of time shows that the injuries were not cured for that length of time * Under par 4. If the offended party is incapacitated to work for less than 30 days. In this respect. covers any other member which is not a principal part of the body. Otherwise. However. not a principal one of his body or use of the same * Loss of the power to hear in the right ear is considered as merely loss of use of some other part of the body * If the injury would require medical attendance for more than 30 days. or 10 days to 20 days if less serious physical injuries. Work: includes studies or preparation for a profession * When the category of the offense of serious physical injuries depends on the period of the illness or incapacity for labor. the physical injuries are already considered less serious physical injuries. but if the medical treatment continues beyond nine days. However. The medical treatment may have lasted for nine days. Meanwhile.

After the plastic surgery. What crime was committed? In what stage was it committed? The crime is serious physical injuries because the problem itself states that the injury would have produced a deformity. It was held that accused can not be convicted of serious physical injuries. Question & Answer The offender threw acid on the face of the offended party. mental. the scar disappeared. If any of the circumstances qualifying murder attended its commission. Serious physical injuries is punished with higher penalties in the following cases: (1) (2) If it is committed against any of the persons referred to in the crime of parricide under Article 246. 8049 (THE ANTI-HAZING LAW)
Hazing -. if the person loses the use of speech or the power to
Sigma Rho ( ΣΡ ) reviewers
146
. accused was charged with serious physical injuries because the injuries produced a scar. Section 4 qualifies the crime if rape. It must be visible. a deformity would have been produced on the face of the victim. and there was no evidence that the medical treatment lasted for more than nine days. it is considered serious physical injuries.
Republic Act No. the offended party was more handsome than before the injury. PNP. He was convicted under Article 263 (4).Elements and Notes in Criminal Law Book II by RENE CALLANTA
purposes of classifying the physical injuries as serious. in the course of the trial. that deformity will bring about the crime of serious physical injuries. He appealed because. an imbecile. if the person becomes insane. You only consider the period of incapacity from work. (3) When the injury created a deformity upon the offended party. The fact that the plastic surgery removed the deformity is immaterial because in law what is considered is not the artificial treatment but the natural healing process. you disregard the healing duration or the period of medical treatment involved.
Thus. In a case decided by the Supreme Court. you do not consider the period of medical treatment. These do not include any physical. So even though the deformity may not have incapacitated the offended party from work. PMA or officer or cadet corps of the CMT or CAT. a father who inflicts serious physical injuries upon his son will be liable for qualified serious physical injuries. psychological testing and training procedure and practice to determine and enhance the physical and psychological fitness of the prospective regular members of the below. Loss of milk front tooth – This is not deformity as it is visible but will be naturally replaced. Section 3 requires supervision by head of the school or the organization of the rites. At once. or impotent or blind because of such. sodomy or mutilation results therefrom. The ugliness will not disappear through natural healing process. He is liable only for slight physical injuries because the victim was not incapacitated. Deformity requires the concurrence of the following conditions: (1) (2) (3) Illustration: Loss of molar tooth – This is not deformity as it is not visible. Organizations include any club or AFP. The injury must produce ugliness. Section 2 requires a written notice to school authorities from the head of the organization seven days prior to the rites and should not exceed three days in duration. Loss of permanent front tooth – This is deformity as it is visible and permanent.This is any initiation rite or practice which is a prerequisite for admission into membership in a fraternity or sorority or any organization which places the neophyte or applicant in some embarrassing or humiliating situations or otherwise subjecting him to physical or psychological suffering of injury. Were it not for timely medical attention. or even though the medical treatment did not go beyond nine days.

Elements and Notes in Criminal Law Book II by RENE CALLANTA
hear or smell or an eye, a foot, an arm or a leg, or the use of any such member or any of the serious physical injuries or the less serious physical injuries. Also if the victim is below 12, or becomes incapacitated for the work he habitually engages in for 30, 10, 1-9 days. It holds the parents, school authorities who consented or who had actual knowledge if they did nothing to prevent it, officers and members who planned, knowingly cooperated or were present, present alumni of the organization, owner of the place where such occurred liable. Makes presence a prima facie presumption of guilt for such.

Article 264 ADMINISTERING INJURIOUS SUBSTANCES OR BEVERAGES
ELEMENTS: 1. That the offender inflicted upon another person any serious physical injury 2. That it was done knowingly administering to him any injurious substances or beverages or by taking advantage of his weakness of mind of credulity 3. He had no intent to kill Notes: * The article under consideration does not deal with a crime. It refers to means of committing serious physical injuries. * It is frustrated murder when there is intent to kill * Administering means introducing into the body the substance, thus throwing of the acid in the face is not contemplated

Article 265 LESS SERIOUS PHYSICAL INJURIES
ELEMENTS: 1. That the offended party is incapacitated for labor for 10 days or more (but not more than 30 days), or needs medical attendance for the same period of time 2. Notes: Circumstances qualifying the offense: a. when there is manifest intent to insult or offend the injured person b. when there are circumstances adding ignominy to the offense c. when the victim is either the offender’s parents, ascendants, guardians, curators or teachers d. when the victim is a person of rank or person in authority, provided the crime is not direct assault * It falls under this article even if there was no incapacity but the medical treatment was for 13 days * In this article, the offended party is incapacitated from work for ten (10) days or more but not more than thirty (30) days. If the injury causes the illness of the victim, the healing duration must be more than nine (9) days but not more than thirty (30) days. That the physical injuries must not be those described in the preceding articles

Sigma Rho ( ΣΡ ) reviewers

147

Elements and Notes in Criminal Law Book II by RENE CALLANTA
* Article 265 is an exception to Article 48 in relation to complex crimes as the latter only takes place in cases where the Revised Penal Code has no specific provision penalizing the same with a definite, specific penalty. Hence, there is no complex crime of slander by deed with less serious physical injuries but only less serious physical injuries if the act which was committed produced the less serious physical injuries with the manifest intent to insult or offend the offended party, or under circumstances adding ignominy to the offense.

Article 266 SLIGHT PHYSICAL INJURIES
3 Kinds: 1. That which incapacitated the offended party for labor from 1-9 days or required medical attendance during the same period 2. That which did not prevent the offended party from engaging in his habitual work or which did not require medical attendance (ex. Black-eye) 3. Ill-treatment of another by deed without causing any injury (ex. slapping but without causing dishonor)
* This involves even ill-treatment where there is no sign of injury requiring medical treatment. * Slapping the offended party is a form of ill-treatment which is a form of slight physical injuries. > But if the slapping is done to cast dishonor upon the person slapped, the crime is slander by deed. If the slapping was done without the intention of casting dishonor, or to humiliate or embarrass the offended party out of a quarrel or anger, the crime is still ill-treatment or slight physical injuries. * The crime is slight physical injury if there is no proof as to the period of the offended party’s incapacity for labor or of the required medical attendance.

Republic Act No. 7610 (Special Protection of Children against Child Abuse, Exploitation and Discrimination Act), in relation to murder, mutilation or injuries to a child
The last paragraph of Article VI of Republic Act No. 7610, provides: “For purposes of this Act, the penalty for the commission of acts punishable under Articles 248, 249, 262 (2) and 263 (1) of Act No 3815, as amended of the Revised Penal Code for the crimes of murder, homicide, other intentional mutilation, and serious physical injuries, respectively, shall be reclusion perpetua when the victim is under twelve years of age.” The provisions of Republic Act No. 7160 modified the provisions of the Revised Penal Code in so far as the victim of the felonies referred to is under 12 years of age. The clear intention is to punish the said crimes with a higher penalty when the victim is a child of tender age. Incidentally, the reference to Article 249 of the Code which defines and penalizes the crime of homicide were the victim is under 12 years old is an error. Killing a child under 12 is murder, not homicide, because the victim is under no position to defend himself as held in the case of People v. Ganohon, 196 SCRA 431. For murder, the penalty provided by the Code, as amended by Republic Act No. 7659, is reclusion perpetua to death – higher than what Republic Act no. 7610 provides. Accordingly, insofar as the crime is murder, Article 248 of the Code, as amended, shall govern even if the victim was under 12 years of age. It is only in respect of the crimes of intentional mutilation in paragraph 2 of Article 262 and of serious physical injuries in paragraph 1 of Article 263 of the Code that the quoted provision of Republic Act No. 7160 may be applied for the higher penalty when the victim is under 12 years old.

RAPE ART 266-A RAPE
The Anti-Rape Law of 1997 (RA 8353) now classified the crime of rape as Crime Against Persons incorporated into Title 8 of the RPC to be known as Chapter 3 ELEMENTS: Rape is committed

Sigma Rho ( ΣΡ ) reviewers

148

Elements and Notes in Criminal Law Book II by RENE CALLANTA
1. By a man who have carnal knowledge of a woman under any of the following circumstances: a. through force, threat or intimidation b. when the offended party is deprived of reason or otherwise unconscious c. by means of fraudulent machination or grave abuse of authority d. when the offended party is under 12 years of age or is demented, even though none of the circumstances mentioned above be present By any person who, under any of the circumstances mentioned in par 1 hereof, shall commit an act of sexual assault by inserting
2.

a. his penis into another person’s mouth or anal orifice, or b. any instrument or object, into the genital or anal orifice of another person Rape committed under par 1 is punishable by: 1. reclusion perpetua 2. reclusion perpetua to DEATH when a. victim became insane by reason or on the occasion of rape b. the rape is attempted and a homicide is committed by reason or on the occasion thereof 3. DEATH when a. homicide is committed b. victim under 18 years and offender is: i. parent ii. ascendant iii. step-parent iv. guardian v. relative by consanguinity or affinity with the 3rd civil degree or vi. common law spouse of parent of victim
c.

under the custody of the police or military authorities or any law enforcement or penal institution committed in full view of the spouse, parent or any of the children or other relatives within the 3rd degree of consanguinity victim is a religious engaged in legitimate religious vocation or calling and is personally known to be such by the offender before or at the time of the commission of the crime a child below 7 years old

d.

e.

f.
g.

offender knows he is afflicted with HIV or AIDS or any other sexually transmissible disease and the virus is transmitted to the victim h. offender; member of the AFP, or para-military units thereof, or the PNP, or any law enforcement agency or penal institution, when the offender took advantage of his position to facilitate the commission of the crime
i.

victim suffered permanent physical mutilation or disability the offender knew of the pregnancy of the offended party at the time of the commission of the crime; and

j.

k. when the offender knew of the mental disability, emotional disorder and/or physical handicap or the offended party at the time of the commission of the crime Rape committed under par 2 is punishable by:

Sigma Rho ( ΣΡ ) reviewers

149

Elements and Notes in Criminal Law Book II by RENE CALLANTA
1. prision mayor 2. prision mayor to reclusion temporal a. use of deadly weapon or b. by two or more persons
3. 4. 5. 6.

reclusion temporal – when the victim has become insane reclusion temporal to reclusion pepetua – rape is attempted and homicide is committed reclusion perpetua – homicide is committed by reason or on occasion of rape reclusion temporal – committed with any of the 10 aggravating circumstances mentioned above

Notes: DIVIDING AGE IN RAPE: a. less than 7 yrs old, mandatory death b. less than 12 yrs old, statutory rape c. less than 18 yrs old and there is relationship (e.g. parent etc); mandatory death * Because of this amendment which reclassified rape as a crime against persons, an impossible crime may now be committed in case of rape; that is, if there is inherent impossibility of its accomplishment or on account of the employment of inadequate or ineffectual means. * The case of People vs. Orita (G.R. No. 88724, April 3, 1990), laid a new doctrine in Philippine penal law insofar as the crime of rape is concerned, as it finally did away with frustrated rape and allowed only attempted rape and consummated rape to remain in our statute books. * The act of “touching” should be understood as inherently part of the entry of the penis into the labia of the female organ and not the mere touching alone of the mons pubis or the pudendum. Jurisprudence dictates that the labia majora (or he outer lips of the female organ) must be entered for rape to be consummated, and not merely for the penis to stroke the surface of the female organ. Thus, grazing of the surface of the female organ or touching the mons pubis of the pudendum is not sufficient to constitute rape. ( Pp vs. Campuhan)
Classification of rape !) Traditional concept under Article 335 – carnal knowledge with a woman against her will. The offended party is always a woman and the offender is always a man. 2) Sexual assault - committed with an instrument or an object or use of the penis with penetration of mouth or anal orifice. The offended party or the offender can either be man or woman, that is, if a woman or a man uses an instrument on anal orifice of male, she or he can be liable for rape. Since rape is not a private crime anymore, it can be prosecuted even if the woman does not file a complaint. If carnal knowledge was made possible because of fraudulent machinations and grave abuse of authority, the crime is rape. This absorbs the crime of qualified and simple seduction when no force or violence was used, but the offender abused his authority to rape the victim. Under Article 266-C, the offended woman may pardon the offender through a subsequent valid marriage, the effect of which would be the extinction of the offender’s liability . Similarly, the legal husband may be pardoned by forgiveness of the wife provided that the marriage is not void ab initio. Obviously, under the new law, the husband may be liable for rape if his wife does not want to have sex with him. It is enough that there is indication of any amount of resistance as to make it rape. Incestuous rape was coined in Supreme Court decisions. It refers to rape committed by an ascendant of the offended woman. In such cases, the force and intimidation need not be of such nature as would be required in rape cases had the accused been a stranger. Conversely, the Supreme Court expected that if the offender is not known to the woman, it is necessary that there be evidence of affirmative resistance put

Sigma Rho ( ΣΡ ) reviewers

150

Allegation of several accused that the woman consented to their sexual intercourse with her is a proposition which is revolting to reason that a woman would allow more than one man to have sexual intercourse with her in the presence of the others. it must be shown that the carnal knowledge with her was obtained against her will. Republic Act No.00. the crime will be rape. the crime is rape. the crime becomes attempted rape. Canada. it would appear that the carnal intercourse is against her will. Even if it was she who wanted the sexual intercourse. although if the rape is incestuous. It is not. The deprivation of reason contemplated by law need not be complete. Mere initial resistance. It has also been ruled that rape can be committed in a standing position because complete penetration is not necessary. The slightest penetration – contact with the labia – will consummate the rape. feeble-minded or idiotic woman is Rape pure and simple. 900). which does not indicate refusal on the part of the offended party to the sexual intercourse. if that intention is not proven. However.
It is not necessary that the force or intimidation employed be so great or of such character as could not be resisted – it is only necessary that it be sufficient to consummate the purpose which the accused had in mind. Illustration: Daughter accuses her own father of having raped her. An accused may be convicted of rape on the sole testimony of the offended woman. no” is not enough if the offender is a stranger. this is admissible in evidence to show that carnal knowledge was against his or her will.
Where the victim is over 12 years old. mental abnormality or deficiency is sufficient. the offender can only be convicted of acts of lasciviousness. This is referred to as statutory rape. if the offended party was in a situation where he or she is incapable of giving valid consent.
If the victim however is exactly twelve (12) years old (she was raped on her birthday) or more. When the victim is below 12 years old. the court may take judicial notice that there is such damage in crimes against chastity. and there is consent. 5 (b) provides that: Even if the victim is over twelve (12) year old and the carnal act was with her consent as long as she falls under the classification of a child exploited in prostitution and other sexual abuse. this is enough. conviction does not require medico-legal finding of any penetration on the part of the woman. 61 Phil. 253 SCRA 277). 7610.Elements and Notes in Criminal Law Book II by RENE CALLANTA
up by the offended woman.
Sigma Rho ( ΣΡ ) reviewers
151
. necessary that the offended party should exert all her efforts to prevent the carnal intercourse. A medico-legal certificate is not necessary or indispensable to convict the accused of the crime of rape. The main distinction between the crime of attempted rape and acts of lasciviousness is the intent to lie with the offended woman. On the other hand. Carnal knowledge with a woman who is asleep constitutes Rape since she was either deprived of reason or otherwise unconscious at that time. It does not require that testimony be corroborated before a conviction may stand. The new rape law also requires that there be a physical overt act manifesting resistance . mere sexual intercourse with her is already rape . as long as there is an intent to effect sexual cohesion. or violence proven to have been exerted to bring about carnal knowledge or the woman must have been deprived of reason or otherwise unconscious. although unsuccessful. (People vs. will not be enough to bring about the crime of rape. however.
In other cases. (People vs. with or without evidence of any moral damage. Mere “no. It has also been held that although the offended woman who is the victim of the rape failed to adduce evidence regarding the damages to her by reason of the rape. Caballero. Sec. there is no rape. It is enough that from her resistance. The standard amount given now is P 50. Note that it has been held that in the crime of rape. It is necessary that there be evidence of some resistance put up by the offended woman. This is particularly true if the commission of the rape is such that the narration of the offended woman would lead to no other conclusion except that the rape was committed. Sexual intercourse with an insane. intimidation. there must be force. deranged or mentally deficient.000. However.

4. maintenance and prohibition of combination of capital or labor through violence or threats (Art. Grave threats (Art. 289). (People vs. Abandonment of persons in danger and abandonment of one's own victim (Art. 2. The fact that he did not remove the underwear of the victim indicates that he does not have a real intention to effect a penetration. 278). Abandonment of minor by person entrusted with his custody. 14. 276). 6. 9. 267). In view of the intrinsic nature of the crime where only two persons are usually involved. added new circumstance – that is. may be guilty of Rape if later on he refuses to pay the said amount. 2. 277). Thereafter. 283). 272). 273). A person in authority who maneuvered a scheme where a woman landed in jail. 4. Slight illegal detention (Art. 8353. Crimes against security 1. 5. manipulating a sham marriage. Exploitation of minors (Art. 280). Unlawful arrest (Art. when carnal knowledge was had by means of fraudulent machinations or grave abuse of authority. Inducing a minor to abandon his home (Art. 270). although the accused raised her skirts. Instead. 271). Discovering secrets through seizure of correspondence (Art. Slavery (Art. Kidnapping and serious illegal detention (Art. 282). 15. though innocent. 7. but more difficult for the person accused. 285). it is difficult to prove.
Sigma Rho ( ΣΡ ) reviewers
152
. Kidnapping and failure to return a minor (Art. 12. 269). 3. The evidence for the prosecution must stand or fall on its own merits. 7. R. Other light threats (Art.Elements and Notes in Criminal Law Book II by RENE CALLANTA
In a case where the accused jumped upon a woman and threw her to the ground. 287). So also. a prostitute who willingly had sexual congress with a man upon the latter’s assurance that she would be paid handsomely. 268). It would seem that if a woman of majority age had sexual intercourse with a man through the latter’s scheme of pretending to marry her which is the condition upon which the woman agreed to have sex with him. An accusation of rape can be made with facility. Light threats (Art. COURT MUST ALWAYS BE GUIDED BY THE FOLLOWING PRINCIPLES: 1. It was only to satisfy a lewd design. the man would be guilty of Rape under this Section. Abandoning a minor (Art. and 3. 6. he stood up and left. Trespass to dwelling (Art. Grave coercions (Art. 291). the accused did not make any effort to remove her underwear. when he was finished. Ricafort)
TITLE NINE CRIMES AGAINST PERSONAL LIBERTY AND SECURITY
Crimes against liberty 1. Other forms of trespass (Art. 274). Exploitation of child labor (Art. Revealing of industrial secrets (Art. 281). The crime committed is only acts of lasciviousness and not attempted rape. 2. 288). the testimony of the complainant must be scrutinized with extreme caution. to disprove. 3. 275). 5. Services rendered under compulsion in payment of debts (Art. willingly consented to the sexual act.
The new law. and who upon promise of being released after having sex with the officer. 16. Light coercions (Art.A. Revealing secrets with abus of office (Art. 13. may also be found guilty of Rape under this new section. IN RAPE CASES. indifference of parents (Art. 10. Formation. 286). 292). Other similar coercions (Art. he removed his own underwear and placed himself on top of the woman and started performing sexual movements. 8. and cannot be allowed to draw strength from the weakness of the evidence for the defense. 11. 290). 8.

The crime of kidnapping is committed if the purpose of the offender is to extort ransom either from the victim or from any other person.
Note: When death penalty is imposed: a. That in the commission of the offense. female or a public officer
d.The act of detention or kidnapping must be illegal
4. Ortega Notes:
When a public officer conspires with a private person in the commission of any of the crimes under Title IX. Usually. (People vs.If a woman is transported from one place to another by virtue of restraining her of her liberty. it connotes the idea that one is restrained of his liberty without necessarily transporting him from one place to another. any of the following circumstances are present
(becomes serious) a.He kidnaps or detains another. and that act is coupled with lewd designs. even though a public officer conspires therein. 250 SCRA 676). Godoy. the crime cannot be arbitrary detention. that the kidnapping/detention lasts for more than 3 days that it is committed simulating public authority
c. to compel her to agree to the demand or request by the offender. The restraint however need not be permanent. As far as that public officer is concerned. to detain him there. There must be indubitable proof that the actual intent of the malefactor was to deprive the offended party of liberty. the crime is also illegal detention. If kidnapping is committed for the purpose of extorting ransom either from the victim or from any other person even if none of the aforementioned are present in the commission of the offense (even if none of the circumstances are present) b. Grave coercion – If a woman is carried away just to break her will. One also has to think of the criminal intent. Forcible abduction -. In the actual essence of the crime.Elements and Notes in Criminal Law Book II by RENE CALLANTA Article 267 KIDNAPPING AND SERIOUS ILLEGAL DETENTION
ELEMENTS: 1. the crime can be illegal detention. or that the person kidnapped or detained is a minor (except if parent is the offender).
Sigma Rho ( ΣΡ ) reviewers
153
. When one thinks of kidnapping. Illustration: If a private person commits the crime of kidnapping or serious illegal detention. b. Serious illegal detention – If a woman is transported just to restrain her of her liberty. that any serious physical injuries are inflicted upon the person kidnapped or detained or threats to kill him are made. it is not only that of transporting one person from one place to another. There is no lewd design or lewd intent. or in any other manner deprives the latter of his liberty 3. When the victim is killed or dies as a consequence of the detention or is raped or is subjected to torture or dehumanizing acts * The essence of the offense is the actual deprivation of the victim’s liberty coupled with the intent of the accused to effect it. the offended party is brought to a place other than his own. when one says kidnapping. When you think illegal detention. But if a person is transported not for ransom. this connotes the idea of transporting the offended party from one place to another. the crime is also one committed under this title and not under Title II.Offender is a private individual 2.

the maximum penalty shall be imposed. or is subjected to torture. The woman was already crying and wanted to be brought home.Elements and Notes in Criminal Law Book II by RENE CALLANTA
In a decided case. But Article 48 will govern if any other person is killed aside. In a way. Arbitrary detention is committed by a public officer who detains a person without legal grounds. the crime is grave coercion. the offender had repeatedly touched the private parts of the woman. Ging Sam. Parulan. In paragraph 4. Article 267 has been modified by Republic Act No. It is considered merely as the “passion of a lover”. increasing the penalty thereof. thus. The crime committed in this case is grave coercion. this brings about the composite crime of kidnapping with rape. Being a composite crime. But if the man is already married. The liability of the parent is provided for in the last paragraph of Article 271. which arose when Congress amended Article 267. because the provision specifically refers to “victim”. People v. the crime would be serious illegal detention. he drove the woman to a far place and told the woman to marry him. or otherwise deprives another of his liberty. The penalty for kidnapping is higher than for forcible abduction . Article 48. If the victim was raped. if the person kidnapped or detained was a minor and the offender was anyone of the parents. the rulings in cases of People v. the suitor placed the woman in a house and would not let her out until she agrees to marry him. the latter has been expressly excluded from the provision. the amendment depreciated the seriousness of the rape
(3)
Sigma Rho ( ΣΡ ) reviewers
154
. But if after they drove to Cavite. the same is regarded as a single indivisible offense as in fact the law punishes such acts with only a single penalty. and other similar cases where the accused were convicted for the complex crimes of kidnapping with murder have become academic. They drove along Roxas Boulevard. or died as a consequence of the kidnapping or detention. This is wrong because if the offender knew about this. There is no more separate crime of kidnapping and murder if the victim was kidnapped not for the purpose of killing her. a suitor. on complex crimes. The Supreme Court ruled that when it is a suitor who could possibly marry the woman. who cannot get a favorable reply from a woman. It was held that the act of the offender of touching the private parts of the woman could not be considered as lewd designs because he was willing to marry the offended party. which states: When the victim is killed or dies as a consequence of the detention or is raped. only one penalty is imposed which is death. Accordingly. or dies as a consequence of the detention and. along the Coastal Road and to Cavite. you cannot consider that as legitimate but immoral and definitely amounts to lewd design. Distinction between illegal detention and arbitrary detention Illegal detention is committed by a private person who kidnaps. thus. If a woman is carried against her will but without lewd design on the part of the offender . merely kissing the woman or touching her private parts to “compel” her to agree to the marriage. such cannot be characterized as lewd design. instead of five days as originally provided. or dehumanizing acts. Illustration: Tom Cruz invited Nicole Chizmacks for a snack. 7659 in the following respects: (1) (2) Illegal detention becomes serious when it shall have lasted for more than three days. he would perform lascivious acts upon the woman and be charged only for forcible abduction instead of kidnapping or illegal detention. the detention is always serious – no matter how short the period of detention is. does not govern in this case . In the composite crime of kidnapping with homicide. as long as the victim was killed. detains. a mission impossible. But while the woman is in his car. purportedly to take home the woman from class. A paragraph was added to Article 267. This amendment brings about a composite crime of kidnapping with homicide when it is the victim of the kidnapping who was killed. covers all forms of killing whether in the nature of murder or otherwise. He thereby benefits from this absurdity. simply. Nicole found this as. It does not matter whether the purpose of the kidnapping was to kill the victim or not. the term “homicide” is used in the generic sense and. without amending Article 342 on forcible abduction. Tom imposed the condition that Nicole should first marry him. not a complex crime. invited the woman to ride with him. On the way. If the victim is a woman or a public officer.

Elements and Notes in Criminal Law Book II by RENE CALLANTA
because no matter how many times the victim was raped, there will only be one kidnapping with rape. This would not be the consequence if rape were a separate crime from kidnapping because each act of rape would be a distinct count. However for the crime to be kidnapping with rape, the offender should not have taken the victim with lewd designs as otherwise the crime would be forcible abduction; and if the victim was raped, the complex crime of forcible abduction with rape would be committed. If the taking was forcible abduction, and the woman was raped several times, there would only be one crime of forcible abduction with rape, and each of the other rapes would constitute distinct counts of rape. This was the ruling in the case of People v. Bacalso. In People v. Lactao, decided on October 29, 1993, the Supreme Court stressed that the crime is serious illegal detention if the purpose was to deprive the offended party of her liberty. And if in the course of the illegal detention, the offended party was raped, a separate crime of rape would be committed. This is so because there is no complex crime of serious illegal detention with rape since the illegal detention was not a necessary means to the commission of rape. In People v. Bernal, 131 SCRA 1, the appellants were held guilty of separate crimes of serious illegal detention and of multiple rapes. With the amendment by Republic Act No. 7659 making rape a qualifying circumstance in the crime of kidnapping and serious illegal detention, the jurisprudence is superseded to the effect that the rape should be a distinct crime. Article 48 on complex crimes may not apply when serious illegal detention and rape are committed by the same offender. The offender will be charged for the composite crime of serious illegal detention with rape as a single indivisible offense, regardless of the number of times that the victim was raped. Also, when the victim of the kidnapping and serious illegal detention was subjected to torture and sustained physical injuries, a composite crime of kidnapping with physical injuries is committed.

Palattao notes: When the person is deprived of his liberty or is seized and forcibly taken to another place, the inquiry would, be what is the purpose of the offender in taking him or her away: 1. If the seizure is only to facilitate the killing of the victim the crime committed would either be homicide or murder and the crime of kidnapping is absorbed. 2. If the seizure or deprivation of liberty is only to compel the victim to perform an act, be it right or wrong, the crime committed would only be grave coercion. (People vs. Astorga, 283 SCRA 420). 3. If the deprivation of liberty is to take away the victim to satisfy the lewd design of the offender, the crime would only be forcible abduction. 4. If the seizure of the victim is solely to deprive him of his liberty, the crime is illegal detention. In the penultimate paragraph of Article 267, there is deprivation of liberty but not for any for the purposes enumerated above. It is for the purpose of extorting ransom from the victim or from any other person. The law classifies the crime committed by the offender as serious illegal detention even if none of the circumstances to make it serious is present in the commission of the crime. In this particular mode of committing the crime of serious illegal detention, demand for ransom is an indispensable element. (People vs. Bustamante, G. R. No. 66427, Dec. 4, 1991) SANDOVAL Notes: If the victim was not kidnapped or taken away but was restrained and deprived of his liberty, like in the case of a hostage incident where the accused, who was one of the occupants of the house, grabbed a child, poked a knife on the latter’s neck, called for media people and demanded a vehicle from the authorities which he could use in escaping, as it turned out that there was an unserved arrest warrant against him, the proper charge is Serious Illegal Detention (without kidnapping anymore) but likewise under Article 267 of the Revised Penal Code. Where after taking the victim with her car, the accused called the house of the victim asking for ransom but upon going to their safehouse saw several police cars chasing them, prompting them to kill their victim inside the car, there were two crime committed – Kidnapping for Ransom and Murder, not a complex crime of Kidnapping with Murder as she was not taken or carried away to be killed, killing being an afterthought . (People vs. Evanoria, 209 SCRA 577).

Sigma Rho ( ΣΡ ) reviewers

155

Elements and Notes in Criminal Law Book II by RENE CALLANTA

Article 268 SLIGHT ILLEGAL DETENTION
ELEMENTS: 1. Offender is a private person 2. He kidnaps or detains another or in any other maner deprives him pof his liberty / furnished place for the perpetuation of the crime 3. That the act of detention or kidnapping must be illegal

4. That the crime is committed without the attendant of any of the circumstances enumerated in Art 267 Note: Privileged mitigating circumstances: If the offender: a. voluntarily releases the person so kidnapped or detained within 3 days from the commencement of the detention b. c. without having attained the purpose intended and before the institution of criminal proceedings against him

Ortega Notes:
One should know the nature of the illegal detention to know whether the voluntary release of the offended party will affect the criminal liability of the offender. When the offender voluntarily releases the offended party from detention within three days from the time the restraint of liberty began, as long as the offender has not accomplished his purposes, and the release was made before the criminal prosecution was commenced, this would serve to mitigate the criminal liability of the offender, provided that the kidnapping or illegal detention is not serious. If the illegal detention is serious, however, even if the offender voluntarily released the offended party, and such release was within three days from the time the detention began, even if the offender has not accomplished his purpose in detaining the offended party, and even if there is no criminal prosecution yet, such voluntary release will not mitigate the criminal liability of the offender. One who furnishes the place where the offended party is being held generally acts as an accomplice. But the criminal liability in connection with the kidnapping and serious illegal detention, as well as the slight illegal detention, is that of the principal and not of the accomplice. The prevailing rule now is Asistio v. Judge, which provides that voluntary release will only mitigate criminal liability if crime was slight illegal detention. If serious, it has no effect. In kidnapping for ransom, voluntary release will not mitigate the crime. This is because, with the reimposition of the death penalty, this crime is penalized with the extreme penalty of death. What is ransom? It is the money, price or consideration paid or demanded for redemption of a captured person or persons, a payment that releases a person from captivity. The definition of ransom under the Lindberg law of the U.S. has been adopted in our jurisprudence in People v. Akiran, 18 SCRA 239, 242, such that when a creditor detains a debtor and releases the latter only upon the payment of the debt, such payment of the debt, which was made a condition for the release is ransom, under this article. In the case of People v. Roluna, decided March 29, 1994, witnesses saw a person being taken away with hands tied behind his back and was not heard from for six years. Supreme Court reversed the trial court ruling that the men accused were guilty of kidnapping with murder. The crime is only slight illegal detention under Article 268, aggravated by a band, since none of the circumstances in Article 267 has been proved beyond a reasonable doubt. The fact that the victim has been missing for six years raises a presumption of death, but from this disputable presumption of death, it should not be further presumed that the persons who were last seen with the absentee is responsible for his disappearance.

Sigma Rho ( ΣΡ ) reviewers

156

Elements and Notes in Criminal Law Book II by RENE CALLANTA Article 269 UNLAWFUL ARREST
ELEMENTS: 1. That the offender arrests or detains another person 2. That the purpose of the offender is to deliver him to the proper authorities 3. That the arrest or detention is not authorized by law or there is no reasonable ground therefor Notes: * Offender is any person, so either a public officer or private individual * The offender in this article can be a private individual or public officer. In the latter case, the offender, being a public officer, has the authority to arrest and detain a person, but the arrest is made without legal grounds. For him to be punished under this article, the public officer must make the arrest and detention without authority to do so; or without acting in his official capacity.
* This felony consists in making an arrest or detention without legal or reasonable ground for the purpose of delivering the offended party to the proper authorities. * The offended party may also be detained but the crime is not illegal detention because the purpose is to prosecute the person arrested. The detention is only incidental; the primary criminal intention of the offender is to charge the offended party for a crime he did not actually commit. * Generally, this crime is committed by incriminating innocent persons by the offender’s planting evidence to justify the arrest – a complex crime results, that is, unlawful arrest through incriminatory machinations under Article 363.

* Refers to warrantless arrests
* If the arrest is made without a warrant and under circumstances not allowing a warrantless arrest, the crime would be unlawful arrest. * If the person arrested is not delivered to the authorities, the private individual making the arrest incurs criminal liability for illegal detention under Article 267 or 268. * If the offender is a public officer, the crime is arbitrary detention under Article 124. * If the detention or arrest is for a legal ground, but the public officer delays delivery of the person arrested to the proper judicial authorities, then Article 125 will apply. * Note that this felony may also be committed by public officers.

* In art 125, the detention is for some legal ground while here, the detention is not authorized by law * In art 125, the crime pertains to failure to deliver the person to the proper judicial authority within the prescribed period while here, the arrest is not authorized by law

Article 270 KIDNAPPING AND FAILURE TO RETURN A MINOR
ELEMENTS: 1. That the offender is entrusted with the custody of a minor person (whether over or under 7 but less than 18 yrs old) 2. That he deliberately fails to restore the said minor to his parents

* If any of the foregoing elements is absent, the kidnapping of the minor will then fall under Article 267. * If the accused is any of the parents, Article 267 does not apply; Articles 270 and 271 apply. * If the taking is with the consent of the parents, the crime in Article 270 is committed.

Sigma Rho ( ΣΡ ) reviewers

157

Elements and Notes in Criminal Law Book II by RENE CALLANTA
* In People v. Generosa, it was held that deliberate failure to return a minor under one’s custody constitutes deprivation of liberty. Kidnapping and failure to return a minor is necessarily included in kidnapping and serious illegal detention of a minor under Article 267(4). * In People v. Mendoza, where a minor child was taken by the accused without the knowledge and consent of his parents, it was held that the crime is kidnapping and serious illegal detention under Article 267, not kidnapping and failure to return a minor under Article 270.

Article 271 INDUCING A MINOR TO ABANDON HIS HOME
ELEMENTS: 1. That the minor (whether over or under 7) is living in the home of his parents or guardians or the person entrusted with his custody 2. That the offender induces a minor to abandon such home

Notes: * The inducement must be actually done with malice and a determined will to cause damage. (People vs. Paalam, C.A., O.G. 8267-8268). But where the victims abandoned their respective homes out of an irresponsible spirit of restlessness and adventure, the crime is not committed. * Minor should not leave his home of his own free will * Mitigating if by father or mother * The article also punishes the father or mother who commits the act penalized under the law. This arises when the custody of the minor is awarded by the court to one of them after they have separated. The other parent who induces the minor to abandon his home is covered by this article.

Article 272 SLAVERY
ELEMENTS: 1. That the offender purchases. Sells, kidnaps or detains a human being. 2. That the purpose of the offender is to enslave such human being.

SLAVERY is the treatment of a human being as a mere property, stripped of dignity and human rights. The person is reduced to the level of an ordinary animal, a mere chattel with material value capable of pecuniary estimation and for which reason, the offender purchases and sells the same. Note: Qualifying circumstance – if the purpose of the offender is to assign the offended party to some immoral traffic (prostitution), the penalty is higher
* This is distinguished from illegal detention by the purpose. If the purpose of the kidnapping or detention is to enslave the offended party, slavery is committed. * The crime is slavery if the offender is not engaged in the business of prostitution. If he is, the crime is white slave trade under Article 341.

Article 273 EXPLOITION OF CHILD LABOR
ELEMENTS: 1. That the offender retains a minor in his service. 2. That it is against the will of the minor.

Sigma Rho ( ΣΡ ) reviewers

158

That place is not inhabited. That the purpose is to require or enforce the payment of a debt. Where the person is already wounded and already in danger of dying. c. By failing to deliver a child. An uninhabited place is determined by
Sigma Rho ( ΣΡ ) reviewers
159
. If the mortally wounded. either as household servant or farm laborer.
Article 274 SERVICES RENDERED UNDER COMPULSION IN PAYMENT OF DEBT
ELEMENTS: 1. there is an obligation to render assistance only if he is found in an uninhabited place. 2. to the authorities or to his family. abandonment will not bring about this crime. b. By failing to render assistance to any person whom the offender finds in an inhabited place wounded or in danger of dying. 3. no crime is committed. unless such omission shall constitute a more serious offense. or by failing to take him to a safe place
* Under the first act. That it is under the pretext of reimbursing himself of a debt incurred by an ascendant. The accused fails to render assistance.
2. In this article. The accused can render assistance without detriment to himself. the offender is liable only when he can render such assistance without detriment to himself. d. By failing to help or render assistance to another whom the offender has accidentally wounded or injured 3. when he can render such assistance without detriment to himself.
Involuntary servitude or service . * If the minor agrees to serve the accused. no distinction is made whether the offended is a minor or an adult. guardian or person entrusted with the custody of such minor. even if the service is rendered to pay an ascendant’s alleged debt. under 7 whom the offender has found abandoned. That it is against the debtor’s will. dying person is found in a place not uninhabited in legal contemplation.Elements and Notes in Criminal Law Book II by RENE CALLANTA
3. unless such omission shall constitute a more serious offense Elements a. The accused found there a person wounded or in danger of dying. That the offender compels a debtor to work for him.
CRIMES AGAINST SECURITY Article 275 ABANDONMENT OF PERSON IN DANGER AND ABANDONMENT OF ONE’S OWN VICTIM
Acts punishable: 1.

That he abandons such child. the place may still be uninhabited if possibility of receiving assistance is remote.
Sigma Rho ( ΣΡ ) reviewers
160
. That the offender has charged of the rearing or education of a minor. without the consent of the proper authorities Elements: a. * If what happened was an accident at first. c.
Article 276 ABANDONING A MINOR
ELEMENTS: 1. That he has no intent to kill the child when the latter is abandoned. the offender would be liable for abandonment if he would not render assistance to the victim. By neglecting his (offender’s) children by not giving them education which their station in life requires and financial condition permits Elements: a. That the child is under seven years of age. or if the one who entrusted such child to the offender is absent. When the death of the minor resulted from such abandonment b.Elements and Notes in Criminal Law Book II by RENE CALLANTA
possibility of person receiving assistance from another. 3. That his station in life requires such education and his financial condition permits it. The purpose of the offender must solely be avoidance of the obligation of taking care of the minor. INDIFFERENCE OF PARENTS
Acts punished: 1. But if you abandon your victim. Notes: * Conscious. Here. 4. Qualifying circumstances: a. If the life of the minor was in danger because of the abandonment
Article 277 ABANDONMENT OF MINOR BY PERSON ENTRUSTED WITH HIS CUSTODY. you will be liable under Article 275. in the absence of that one. the proper authorities have not consented to it. That he neglects his children by not giving them education. 2. c. That the one who entrusted such child to the offender has not consented to such act. As long as the victim was injured because of the accident caused by the offender. By delivering a minor to a public institution or other persons w/o consent of the one who entrusted such minor to the care of the offender or. the offender must have abandoned the child with deliberate intent. deliberate. That the offender is a parent. 2. permanent * In order to hold one criminally liable under this article. b. Even if there are many houses around. That the offender has the custody of a child. That he delivers said minor to a public institution or other persons. the character of the place is immaterial. there would be no liability pursuant to Article 12 (4) of the RPC – damnum absque injuria. b.

curators or teachers to follow any person engaged in any of the callings mentioned in par 2 or to accompany any habitual vagrant or beggar. As long as the employment is inimical – even though there is no physical risk – and detrimental to the child’s interest – against moral. the crime is not committed.
ADDITIONAL PENALTIES FOR OTHER OFFENSES: (279) Article 280 QUALIFIED TRESPASS TO DWELLING
ELEMENTS: 1. * But remember Republic Act No. At this age. By employing any descendant under 12 in dangerous exhibitions enumerated in the next preceding paragraph.
Sigma Rho ( ΣΡ ) reviewers
161
. gymnast. intellectual. * If the minor so employed would suffer some injuries as a result of a violation of Article 278. guardians.
Article 278 EXPLOITATION OF MINORS
Acts punished: 1. the offender being engaged in any of said callings 4. By causing any boy or girl under 16 to perform any dangerous feat of balancing. * If the employer is an ascendant. Age – Must be below 16 years. Nature of the Business – This involves circuses which generally attract children so they themselves may enjoy working there unaware of the danger to their own lives and limbs. compensation or promise. physical. Below that age. the law regards that he would look after the welfare and protection of the child. diver or wild-animal trainer or circus manager or to any habitual vagrant of beggar is made in consideration of any price. and mental development of the minor – the establishment will be closed. the offender being an ascendant. physical strength or contortion. the offender being any person Note: Qualifying Circumstance – if the delivery of the child to any person following any of the callings of acrobat. not 16 years old as in the Revised Penal Code. By delivering a child under 16 gratuitously to any person following any of the callings enumerated in par 2 or to any habitual vagrant or beggar. But the exploitation will be dealt with by Republic Act No. That the offender is a private person. the age is lowered to 12 years. Because if the employer is an ascendant. 7610 (Special Protection of Children against Child Abuse. rope-walker. the penalty is higher. the minor is still growing.
* The offender is engaged in a kind of business that would place the life or limb of the minor in danger. * Article 278 has no application if minor is 16 years old and above. diver. By employing children under 16 who are not the children or descendants of the offender in exhibitions of acrobat. the crime is committed. rope-walker.Elements and Notes in Criminal Law Book II by RENE CALLANTA
“Indifference of parents” – while they are financially capable of supporting the needs of their children. Exploitation and Discrimination Act). Article 279 provides that there would be additional criminal liability for the resulting felony. guardian. 7610. By inducing any child under 16 to abandon the home of its ascendants. or wild-animal tamer or circus manager or engaged in a similar calling 3. hence. even though working for him is not against the will of the minor. unless the minor is less than 12 years old. they deliberately neglect to support the educational requirements of these children through plain irresponsibility caused by wrong social values. It applies to minors below 18 years old. teacher or person entrusted in any capacity with the care of such child 5. the offender being any person 2.

trespass is committed. That such entrance is against the latter’s will. Cuello Calon opines that violence may be committed not only against persons but also against things. entry through a window). proof of prohibition to enter is no longer necessary. breaking the door or glass of a window or door constitutes acts of violence. That he enters the dwelling of another. 3. it is not necessary that the entry should be preceded by an express prohibition. the crime committed will be trespass to dwelling and frustrated homicide. his being the owner would not authorize him to enter the house against the will of the lawful occupant. Fraudulent entrance may constitute trespass.
Qualifying circumstance: if the offense is committed by means of violence or intimidation. But if the purpose is not shown and while inside the dwelling he was found by the occupants. then his entry shall now be considered to have been made without the express consent of the owner.
* May be committed even by the owner (as against the actual occupant) * Even if the house belonged to the accused. 21 Phil. It is not necessary that there be a breaking. for as long as it is closed. De Peralta. Violence or intimidation must. one who enters a building is not presumed to be trespasser until the owner tells him to leave the building .
* Lack of permission to enter a dwelling does not amount to prohibition. 615) * Implied prohibition is present considering the situation – late at night and everyone’s asleep or entrance was made through the window
“Against the will” -. If the purpose is shown. * To prove that an entry is against the will of the occupant. either expressly or impliedly. it may be absorbed in the crime as in robbery with force upon things. It is not necessary that it be the permanent dwelling of the person. the trespass yielding to the more serious crime. the prohibition is presumed especially if the entry was done at the late hour of the night or at an unholy hour of the day. Our Supreme Court followed this view in People v. It includes the dependencies which have interior communication with the house. prohibited or the prohibition is presumed. the penalty is higher * There must be an opposition to the entry of the accused
* If the entry is made by a way not intended for entry. one of whom was injured by him. 42 Phil. In such a case. Almeda. be anterior or coetaneous with the entrance and must not be posterior. such as the existence of enmity or strained relations between the accused and the occupant. trespass is committed. Notes:
DWELLING – This is the place that a person inhabits. So. or if there was no injury. So. a person’s room in a hotel may be considered a dwelling. Tayag. The prohibition to enter may be made at any time and not necessarily at the time of the entrance. however. His ownership is no authority for him to place the law in his hands. It also includes a room where one resides as a boarder. physical injuries. 75 Phil. 476)
Sigma Rho ( ΣΡ ) reviewers
162
. If there is also violence or intimidation. this is the crime
* If the purpose in entering the dwelling is not shown.
* When there is no overt act of the crime intended to be committed. that is presumed to be against the will of the occupant (example. vs. unjust vexation. if he refuses to leave. (People vs. S. So. But if the violence is employed immediately after the entrance without the consent of the owner of the house. Mesina.
* Prohibition is not necessary when violence or intimidation is employed by the offender
* On violence. 69) * Even if the door is not locked.Elements and Notes in Criminal Law Book II by RENE CALLANTA
2. provided that the opposition of the occupant is clearly established by the circumstances under which the entry is made. (U. if the possession has been delivered to another by reason of contract or by a mere tolerance.This means that the entrance is. (People vs.

That the entrance is made while either of them is uninhabited. he had no intent to kill any person inside. after having surreptitiously entered such dwelling.Elements and Notes in Criminal Law Book II by RENE CALLANTA
Distinction between qualified trespass to dwelling and violation of domicile Unlike qualified trespass to dwelling. That there is a demand for money or that any other condition is imposed. place is a café.
Not applicable to: a. honor or property that of
his family of any wrong amounting to a crime and demanding money or imposing any other condition.
Medina case: when the accused entered the dwelling through the window. of any wrong. entrance is for the purpose of preventing harm to himself. That the trespasser has not secured the permission of the owner or the caretaker thereof. That the offender enters the closed premises or the fenced estate of another. (2) searching papers or other effects found in such dwelling without the previous consent of the owner thereof. purpose is to render some service to humanity or justice c. the occupants or a third person b. and (3) refusing to leave the dwelling when so requested by the owner thereof. 3. That the prohibition to enter be manifest. honor or property or that of
his family of any wrong amounting to a crime.
THREATS and COERCIONS Article 282 GRAVE THREATS
Acts punishable:
1. or upon that of the latter’s family. Rule 113 of the Rules of Court. b. That the offender threatens another person with the infliction upon the latter’s person. a person who believes that a crime has been committed against him has every right to go after the culprit and arrest him without any warrant even if in the process he enters the house of another against the latter’s will. the threat not being subject to a condition (Note: threat is without condition)
Sigma Rho ( ΣΡ ) reviewers
163
. the crime of trespass to dwelling is a separate and distinct offense from frustrated homicide
Article 281 OTHER FORMS OF TRESPASS
ELEMENTS: 1. That the offender attains his purpose. That such wrong amounts to a crime. honor or property. c. even though not unlawful and the offender (Note: threat is with condition) Elements a. but the intention to kill came to his mind when he was being arrested by the occupants thereof. 2. 4. d. even though not unlawful. tavern etc while open
* Pursuant to Section 6. By threatening another with the infliction upon his person. By making such threat without the offender attaining his purpose
3. 2. By threatening another with the infliction upon his person. violation of domicile may be committed only by a public officer or employee and the violation may consist of any of the three acts mentioned in Article 128 – (1) entering the dwelling against the will of the owner without judicial order.

threat may refer to the person. in threats. and the offender shall have attained his purpose . the issuer of the threat did not pursue the act. b. As to subject matter – Robbery refers to personal property. characterized by moral pressure that produces disquietude or alarm. hence. in threat. the wrong or harm done is future and conditional. It is. That the offender threatens another person with the infliction upon the latter’s person. in threats.
Aggravating circumstances: if made in writing or thru a middleman Frustrated – if not received by the person being threatened * Art 284 bond for good behavior may be imposed (only in these offenses) Ortega Notes:
Threat is a declaration of an intention or determination to injure another by the commission upon his person. In threat. the threats must refer to a future wrong and is committed by acts or through words of such efficiency to inspire terror or fear upon another. It is done by threatening to commit the crime upon the person. the intimidation is personal. The maximum period of the penalty is imposed if the threats are made in writing or through a middleman as they manifest evident premeditation. intent to gain is not an essential element. it may be through an intermediary. To constitute grave threats. That the threat is not subject to a condition Notes:
Intimidation is an indispensable element in the crime of threat. the intimidation is future and conditional. whether lawful or not. it is direct and personal. Distinction between threat and robbery: (1) (2) (3) (4) As to intimidation – In robbery. There is no condition involved. anxiety and insecurity in the mind of the offended party. Distinction between threat and coercion: The essence of coercion is violence or intimidation. the intimidation is actual and immediate. honor or property. honor or property. The case falls under Article 283. That such wrong amounts to a crime. There is a promise of some future harm or injury. As to nature of intimidation – In robbery. Light threats – if it does not amount to a crime. The case falls under Article 282. In coercion. of any wrong. honor or property or upon that of his family of some wrong which may or may not amount to a crime: (1) (2) Grave threats – when the wrong threatened to be inflicted amounts to a crime. The very essence of threat is to sow fear.
Sigma Rho ( ΣΡ ) reviewers
164
. the crime is only other light threats under Article 285. The greater perversity of the offender is manifested when the threats are made demanding money or imposing any condition. As to intent to gain – In robbery. there is no futurity in the harm or wrong done. So the law imposes upon him the penalty next lower in degree than that prescribed for the crime threatened to be committed. the penalty lower by two degrees is imposed. But if the purpose is not attained.
But even if the harm intended is in the nature of a crime. honor and property of the offended party. if made orally and in the heat of anger and after the oral threat. c. there is intent to gain.Elements and Notes in Criminal Law Book II by RENE CALLANTA
Elements a. or upon that of the latter’s family. therefore.

That there is a demand for money or that other condition is imposed. without persisting in the idea involved in the threat.Elements and Notes in Criminal Law Book II by RENE CALLANTA
(5) In robbery. the robber makes the danger involved in his threats directly imminent to the victim and the obtainment of his gain immediate.
Article 283 LIGHT THREATS
ELEMENTS: 1. If the offender can not post the bond. 3. That the offender makes a threat to commit a wrong. even though lawful. Subsequent acts did not persist. a person threatens to expose the affairs of married man if the latter does not give him money. * Bond to keep peace under Article 35 is applicable to all cases and is treated as a distinct penalty. It is in the nature of an additional penalty. thereby also taking rights to his person by the opposition or resistance which the victim might offer. 2. There is intimidation done under a demand. the harm threatened must not be in the nature of crime and there is a demand for money or any other condition is imposed. he shall be detained for a period not exceeding six months if the crime for which he was convicted is classified as grave felony or for a period not exceeding thirty days if convicted for a light felony. That the offender has attained his purpose or. In the heat of anger. For example.
Article 285 OTHER LIGHT THREATS
ELEMENTS: 1. That the wrong does not constitute a crime.
Sigma Rho ( ΣΡ ) reviewers
165
. even though not unlawful 4. person orally threatens another with some harm constituting a crime.
Article 284 BOND FOR GOOD BEHAVIOR
* The law imposes the penalty of bond for good behavior only in case of grave and light threats. If the sentenced prisoner fails to give the bond. the danger to the victim is not instantly imminent nor the gain of the culprit immediate. he will be banished by way of destierro to prevent him from carrying out his threat. 3. that he has not attained his purpose
* In order to convict a person of the crime of light threats. or draw weapon in a quarrel unless in self-defense. Question & Answer Blackmailing constitutes what crime? It is a crime of light threat under Article 283 if there is no threat to publish any libelous or slanderous matter against the offended party. the crime will be one of libel. which is penalized under Article 356. If there is such a threat to make a slanderous or libelous publication against the offended party. in threat. 2. Person orally threatens another with harm not constituting a felony. Person shall threaten another with a weapon.
* Bond for good behavior means the posting of bond on the part of the accused in order to guarantee that he will not molest the offended party.

and takes the wallet. or (2) compel him to do something he does not want to do. of force as would produce intimidation and control the will.
Acts punished 1. 2.Elements and Notes in Criminal Law Book II by RENE CALLANTA
* In the crime of light threats. Violence is inherent in the crime of robbery with violence or intimidation upon persons and in usurpation of real properties because it is the means of committing the crime. * If a person prohibits another to do an act because the act is a crime. in case of grave coercion where the offended party is being compelled to do something against his will. when made in the heat of anger or which is a product of a spur of the moment are generally considered as light threats. even though some sort of violence or intimidation is employed. the crime is committed even in the absence of the person to whom the threat is directed. If the act prohibited was illegal. by means of violence. That the prevention or compulsion be effected by violence.
* In grave coercion. even if the obligation is long over due. However. It may only give rise to threat or physical injuries. The intimidation is a means of committing robbery with violence or intimidation of persons. That the person that restrained the will and liberty by another had not the authority of law or the right to do so.
Sigma Rho ( ΣΡ ) reviewers
166
. actual. Compelling another. The essence of coercion is an attack on individual liberty. by means of violence. there is no demand for money and the threat made is not planned or done with deliberate intent.
Article 286 GRAVE COERCIONS
ELEMENTS: 1. coercion is not committed. * The violence employed in grave coercion must be immediate. be it right or wrong. the act of preventing by force must be made at the time the offended party was doing or was about to do the act to be prevented. if some injuries are inflicted. or. it would not give rise to grave coercion. to do something against his will. So threats which would otherwise qualify as grave threats. Illustration: Compelling the debtor to deliver some of his properties to pay a creditor will amount to coercion although the creditor may have a right to collect payment from the debtor. whether it be right or wrong. threats or intimidation. Preventing another. 2. * Whether it is grave or light threats. or imminent . In the absence of actual or imminent force or violence. this is robbery and not grave coercion. That a person prevented another from doing something OR not to do something against his will. threats or intimidation. * Exception to the rule that physical violence must be exerted: where intimidation is so serious that it is not a threat anymore – it approximates violence. from doing something not prohibited by law. in other words. No person shall take the law into his own hands. he is not liable for grave coercion. whether it be wrong or not. that the restraint shall not be made under authority of law or in the exercise of any lawful right.
* Grave coercion arises only if the act which the offender prevented another to do is not prohibited by law or ordinance. Illustration: If a man compels another to show the contents of the latter’s pockets. 3. * The physical violence is exerted to (1) prevent a person from doing something he wants to do. the crime of grave coercion is committed if violence or intimidation is employed in order to compel him to do the act.

the complainant ceases to exits as an independent personality and the person who employs force or intimidation is. directly or indirectly. * It is distinguished from grave coercion under the first paragraph by the absence of violence. Illustration: Persons stoning someone else’s house. the complainant may have acted reluctantly and with hesitation. That the offender is any person. but which unjustifiably annoys or vexes an innocent person amounts to light coercion. That he forces or compels.Elements and Notes in Criminal Law Book II by RENE CALLANTA
* In Lee v. * As a punishable act. unjust vexation should include any human conduct which.
Sigma Rho ( ΣΡ ) reviewers
167
. 1. That he seizes anything belonging to his debtor. it is unjust vexation. any act committed without violence. or knowingly permitting the forcing or compelling of the laborer or employee of the offender to purchase merchandise of commodities of any kind from him. ELEMENTS OF NO. It disturbs the peace of mind. That he or such firm or corporation has employed laborers or employees. 2 Paying the wages due his laborer or employee by means of tokens or object other than the legal tender currency of the Philippines. and also made her execute an affidavit regarding the return of the amount against her better sense and judgment. while the hand of the complainant sign. 2. In this situation. unjustifiably annoy or vex an innocent person. not of men. however. CA. According to the court. it was held that neither the crime of threats nor coercion is committed although the accused. although not productive of some physical or material harm would. the will that moves it is the hand of the offender. The essence of the crimes is the attack on individual liberty. it was voluntary. 201 SCAR 405. any of his or its laborers or employees to purchase merchandise or commodities of any kind from his or from said firm or corporation.
UNJUST VEXATION
* In unjust vexation.
Article 288 OTHER SIMILAR COERCIONS
ELEMENTS OF NO. agent or officer of any association or corporation. It is different when a complainant refuses absolutely to act such an extent that she becomes a mere automaton and acts mechanically only. * The main purpose of the statute penalizing coercion and unjust vexation is precisely to enforce the principle that no person may take the law into his hands and that our government is one of laws. a branch manager of a bank made the complainant sign a withdrawal slip for the amount needed to pay the spurious dollar check she had encashed. 3. in the eyes of the law. 2. That the purpose of the offender is to apply the same to the payment of the debt. 3. but still. That the offender must be a creditor. not of her own will. That the seizure of the thing be accomplished by means of violence or a display of material force producing intimidation. or knowingly permits to be forced or compelled. So long as stoning is not serious and it is intended to annoy. 4. 1 Forcing or compelling. unless expressly requested by such laborer or employee.
Article 287 LIGHT COERCIONS
ELEMENTS: 1. the one acting. directly or indirectly.

believes otherwise. That those tokens or objects are other than the legal tender currency to the Philippines. That offender is informed of the contents or the papers or letters seized. it is not necessary that the offender should actually discover the contents of the letter. That the offender employs violence or threats. The ruling held that the wife should have applied for a search warrant. That the purpose is to organize.
Article 289 FORMATION. tokens. The act violates the privacy of communication. That such employee or laborer does not expressly request that he be paid by means of tokens or objects.
* Contents need not be secret but purpose prevails
* According to Ortega. 602. Notes:
* This is a crime against the security of one’s papers and effects. 40 OG. In a case decided by the Supreme Court. coupons. or persons entrusted with the custody of minors placed under their care or custody. wages of laborers must be paid in legal tender. MAINTENANCE. known as the Minimum Wage Law .
DISCOVERY AND REVELATION OF SECRETS Article 290 DISCOVERING SECRETS THROUGH SEIZURE OF CORRESPONDENCE
ELEMENTS: 1.
That he seizes the papers or letters of another. citing People v. it is unlawful to pay the wages of the laborers in the form of promissory notes.
Sigma Rho ( ΣΡ ) reviewers
168
. or any other forms alleged to represent legal tender. guardians. maintain or prevent coalitions of capital or labor. That the purpose is to discover the secrets of such another person. Suppl. Accordingly. 3. The teachers or other persons entrusted with the care and education of minors are included in the exceptions. 2. CA. Singh. * Preventing employees or laborers from joining any registered labor organization is punished under Art. The purpose must be to discover its effects. 3.
* Not applicable to parents with respect to minor children
* The last paragraph of Article 290 expressly makes the provision of the first and second paragraph thereof inapplicable to parents. in such a degree as to compel or force the laborers or employers in the free and legal exercise of their industry or work 2. That the offender pays the wages due a laborer or employee employed by him by means of tokens or objects. 248 of the Labor Code. but the letters are inadmissible in evidence because of unreasonable search and seizure. a spouse who rummaged and found love letters of husband to mistress does not commit this crime.Elements and Notes in Criminal Law Book II by RENE CALLANTA
1. * Under the Republic Act No. strike of laborers or lockout of employees. 2. 4. Reyes. 5. vouchers. AND PROHIBITION OF COMBINATION OF CAPITAL OR LABOR THROUGH VIOLENCE OR THREATS
ELEMENTS: 1. 35. * Peaceful picketing is part of the freedom of speech and is not covered by this article. That the offender is a private individual or even a public officer not in the exercise of his official function. and to the spouses with respect to the papers or letters of either of them.

but only to cause damage to another’s. * If the matter pertains to the business of the employer or master.Elements and Notes in Criminal Law Book II by RENE CALLANTA
Circumstances qualifying the offense: when the offender reveals contents of such papers or letters of another to a 3rd person. 3.
Article 291 REVEALING SECRETS WITH ABUSE OF OFFICE
ELEMENTS: 1. the penalty is higher
Distinction from estafa. It is a matter to be discovered. He is enjoying a confidential relation with the employer or master so he should respect the privacy of matters personal to the latter. That the manufacturing or industrial establishment has a secret of the industry which the offender has learned. a discovery within the contemplation of Article 292. known and used by and must belong to one person or entity exclusively. 3.
Article 292 REVELATION OF INDUSTRIAL SECRETS
ELEMENTS: 1. One who merely copies their machines from those already existing and functioning cannot claim to have a business secret. That the offender reveals such secrets.
* A business secret must not be known to other business entities or persons. it would be estafa. employee or servant shall always be liable. That the offender is a manager. 2. or servant who came to know of the secret of his master or principal in such capacity and reveals the same shall also be liable regardless of whether or not the principal or master suffered damages. If the intention was merely to cause vexation preventing another to do something which the law does not prohibit or compel him to execute what he does not want.
* An employee. and unjust vexation: If the act had been executed with intent of gain.
TITLE TEN CRIMES AGAINST PROPERTY
Sigma Rho ( ΣΡ ) reviewers
169
. the purpose was not to defraud. employee or servant. much less. damage is necessary and the agent. If. Reason: no one has a right to the personal privacy of another. it would merit the qualification of damage to property. That the prejudice is caused to the owner. 2. manager. That he learns the secrets of his principal or master in such capacity. employee or workman of a manufacturing or industrial establishment. That the offender is a person in charge. That he reveals such secrets. the act should be considered as unjust vexation. 4. damage to property. * The essence of this crime is that the offender learned of the secret in the course of his employment. on the other hand.

Damage and obstruction to means of communication (Art. Aiding and abetting a band of brigands (Art. 12. 6. Occupation of real property or usurpation of real rights in property (Art. 321). 17. and That there is violence against or intimidation of any person. 29. 22. 306). 7. Arson of property of small value (Art. Theft of the property of the National Library and National Museum (Art. That the taking must be with intent to gain. 18. 26. 316). Brigandage (Art. 313). 9. Altering boundaries or landmarks (Art. 307). 23.
Belonging to another – person from whom property was taken need not be the owner. Crimes involving destruction (Art. 311). 16. 314). 11. 299). Swindling (Art.
Article 293 ROBBERY IN GENERAL
ELEMENTS: 1. 13. 320). Execution of deeds by means of violence or intimidation (Art. 326). 331). 28.Elements and Notes in Criminal Law Book II by RENE CALLANTA
Crimes against property 1. 8. 315). 317). 2. Attempted and frustrated robbery committed under certain circumstances (Art. by means of violence against. 330). Destroying or damaging statues. or using force upon anything. Special case of malicious mischief (Art.
That there is unlawful taking of that property.
Two kinds of robbery: 1) robbery with violence or intimidation and 2) robbery with force upon things. or intimidation of any person. 27. 312). 4. 297). 15. 328). with intent to gain. Robbery with violence against or intimidation of persons (Art. Removal. 5. Other forms of arson (Art. 3. Other forms of swindling (Art. Destructive arson (Art. 14. Robbery in an inhabited place or in a private building (Art. Malicious mischief (Art. 325). 19. or force upon anything. 327). 324). Robbery in an inhabited house or public building or edifice devoted to worship (Art. 304). Setting fire to property exclusively owned by the offender (Art. 21. 298). public monuments or paintings (Art. 25. That there be personal property belonging to another. 308). 310). Burning one’s own property as means to commit arson (Art. 4. 318). Swindling a minor (Art. sale or pledge of mortgaged property (Art. 323). 24. 2. Theft (Art. Qualified theft (Art. 302). 10. Possession of picklocks or similar tools (Art. Fraudulent insolvency (Art. legal possession is sufficient * The property must be personal property and cannot refer to real property. Notes:
ROBBERY – This is the taking or personal property belonging to another. 20. 294).
Sigma Rho ( ΣΡ ) reviewers
170
. 319). Other deceits (Art. 3.

. 29 Phil. et al. Both involve personal property belonging to another. S. NO. 567) * When both violence or intimidation and force upon things concur – it is robbery with violence Robbery and Theft. (U. S. G. A. the possessor must necessarily be considered the author of the aggression and death of the victim as well as of the robbery committed. rape. even if taking is already complete when violence was used by the offender Use of force upon things – entrance to the building by means described in arts 299 and 302 (offender must enter) * The other kind of robbery is one that is committed with the use of force upon anything in order to take with intent to gain. 85178. However. the taking is done with intent to gain. Taking of personal property – must be unlawful. compared. Kho Choc. if given in trust – estafa * The taking of the property must be coupled with the intention to permanently deprive the offended party of his possession of the things taken. Albao. 28 Phil. the taking of the property is robbery complexed with any of these crimes under art 294. (U. C. Adorno. the personal property of another. (People vs. (People vs. The use of force here must refer to the force employed upon things in order to gain entrance into a building or a house. the taking is not considered to be with intent to gain. Manluco. A. (People vs. intentional mutilation or any of the serious physical injuries in par 1 and 2 of art 263. 3. not upon the thing General rule: violence or intimidation must be present before the “taking” is complete Except: when violence results in – homicide.Elements and Notes in Criminal Law Book II by RENE CALLANTA
* Name of the real owner is not essential so long as the personal property taken does not belong to the accused except if crime is robbery with homicide * The owner of the property may be held liable for robbery where he forcible takes the property from the possession of the bailee with intent to charge the latter with its value. C. R.
Sigma Rho ( ΣΡ ) reviewers
171
. vs. 2. G. 360) * When there’s no intent to gain but there is violence in the taking – grave coercion * Violence or intimidation must be against the person of the offended party. 1990) Suppose the property is res nullus or without an owner? The crime of robbery or theft cannot be committed if the property is without an owner for the simple reason that no one can be prejudiced by the taking of the personal property. the unlawful taking is complete As to robbery with force upon things – thing must be taken out of the building Intent to gain – presumed from unlawful taking * Intent to gain may be presumed from the unlawful taking of another’s property. In both crimes. March 15. Rapuela.. 1667) As to robbery with violence or intimidation – from the moment the offender gains possession of the thing even if offender has had no opportunity to dispose of the same. 1. G. 40 O. 86) * In the absence of any explanation as to how one has come into possession of stolen effects belonging to a person wounded and treacherously killed. even though the intent to gain is present in the taking. Both robbery and theft involve unlawful taking or asportation as an element. vs. 50 O. when one takes a property under the claim of ownership or title.

the stealing of which comes within its penal sanction. SPI – insane. the taking is done simply without the knowledge and consent of the owner. (Izon. promises some future harm or injury Grave coercion None Intimidation (effect) is immediate and offended party is compelled to do something against his will (w/n right or wrong)
Robbery Bribery X didn’t commit crime but is intimidated to X has committed a crime and gives deprive him of his property money as way to avoid arrest or prosecution Deprived of money thru force or intimidation Giving of money is in one sense voluntary Neither Transaction is voluntary and mutual Ex. not exclusively for private use is covered within the concept of motor vehicle under the Anti-Carnapping Law. People. et al. impotent or blind 3.00 with threats of arrest and prosecution. whereas in theft. use of any such member. hand. or shall have lost any part of the body or the use thereof or shall have been ill or incapacitated for the performance of the work for > 90 days. the following are committed: 1. A tricycle which is not included in the enumeration of exempted vehicles under the Carnapping Law is deemed to be motor vehicle as defined in the law. Notes: Any kind of robbery with less serious physical injuries or slight physical injuries
Sigma Rho ( ΣΡ ) reviewers
172
. of a motor vehicle belonging to another without the latter’s consent. with intent to gain. or by using force upon things. imbecile. arm. 107 SCRA 118)
Article 294 ROBBERY WITH VIOLENCE AGAINST OR INTIMIDATION OF PERSON
Acts punished as robbery with violence against or intimidation of persons By reason or on occasion of the robbery. leg. eye. > 30 days 5. hear. vs. If the vehicle uses the streets with or without the required license. therefore. for the severity of the offense is not to be measured by what kind of street or highway the same is used but by the nature of the vehicle itself and the case to which it is devoted. robbery because (a) intent to gain and (b) immediate harm ANTI – CARNAPPING ACT ( RA # 6539 )
“Carnapping” is the taking.Elements and Notes in Criminal Law Book II by RENE CALLANTA
4. SPI – lost the use of speech. Robbery with violence Intent to gain Immediate harm Grave threats No intent to gain Intimidation. smell. the same comes within the protection of the law. incapacitated for work habitually engaged in 4. the taking is done either with the use of violence or intimidation of person or the employment of force upon things.. homicide
2. defendant demands payment of P2. In robbery. robbery accompanied with rape or intentional mutilation. foot. Violence/intimidation shall have been carried to a degree clearly unnecessary for the crime or when in the cause of its execution – SPI/deformity. or by means of violence against or intimidation of persons.
Any vehicle which is motorized using the streets which are public.

the crime is Robbery with Homicide. C and D robbed a bank. * As long as the criminal intent is to rob. robbery with murder. don’t think that those who sustained physical injuries may separately prosecute the offender for physical injuries. if original design is robbery and homicide is committed – robbery with homicide even though homicide precedes the robbery by an appreciable time. Robbery with Homicide was committed. If one of the policemen was killed. Those physical injuries are only considered aggravating circumstances in the crime of robbery with homicide. first shoots the policeman fatally and only after when the latter lies dead. but a single indivisible crime.
* As long as the criminal objective or plan is to rob. there is no crime of robbery with parricide. somebody is killed. If one of the robbers was the one killed. 165 SCRA 490). Pecato. If original design is not robbery but robbery was committed after homicide as an afterthought – 2 separate offenses. whether the killing committed by reason or on occasion thereof is intentional or accidental. the crime will be robbery with homicide provided that the robbery is consummated. any kind of killing by reason of or on the occasion of a robbery will bring about the crime of robbery with homicide even if the person killed is less than three days old. * Thus. the killing occurring on the occasion thereof. on the occasion or by reason of the robbery.Elements and Notes in Criminal Law Book II by RENE CALLANTA
SPECIAL COMPLEX CRIMES (specific penalties prescribed)
ROBBERY WITH HOMICIDE –
a. (People vs. Tolentino. This is a special complex crime because the specific penalty is provided in the law. and they traded shots with them. does he get the gun – the crime is still considered Robbery with Homicide. the crime will only be one (1) count of robbery with homicide. and there are also physical injuries inflicted by reason or on the occasion of the robbery.
* If death results or even accompanies a robbery. the offense would still be classified as Robbery with Homicide even if the killing preceded or was done ahead of the robbing. but also with robbery with murder. and the complex crime therein contemplated comprehends not only robbery with homicide in its restricted sense. or even if on such robbery the person killed was done by treachery or any of the qualifying circumstances. Still robbery with homicide – if the person killed was an innocent bystander and not the person robbed and if death supervened by mere accident. you contend not with the killing but with the robbery. * The original criminal design of the culprit must be Robbery and the Homicide is perpetrated with a view to the consummation of the Robbery. but because he fears that said policeman may beat him to the draw. as a member of the “agaw-armas” gang whose plan and design is to rob a policeman of his service revolver. Illustration:
Sigma Rho ( ΣΡ ) reviewers
173
. c. the remaining robbers shall be charged also with Robbery with Homicide. The fact that there are multiple killings committed in the course of the robbery will be considered only as aggravating so as to call for the imposition of the maximum penalty prescribed by law. 151 scra 14 ) As long as there was killing when Robbery was taking place. So. the crime is still Robbery with Homicide. policemen came. In short. B.
* This is a crime against property. If a bank employee was the one killed either by the robbers or by the policemen in the course of the latter’s action of arresting or trying to arrest the robbers. * As long as there is only one (1) robbery. Problem: A. b. ( Pp vs. * If. robbery with infanticide – any and all forms of killing is referred to as homicide. regardless of the persons killed. the offense is Robbery with Homicide. * This is not a complex crime as understood under Article 48. * The term “homicide” is used in the generic sense. that is. robbery was the real motive. and therefore. When they were about to flee. or even if the person killed is the mother or father of the killer.

Even if the robbery was already consummated. if in a robbery. there were different boarders who were offended parties in the robbery. In entering through the window. He need not also be in the place of the robbery. one of the robbers bumped the table. if the killing in a robbery is committed with treachery. the killing was still by reason of the robbery because they quarreled in dividing the loot that is the subject of the robbery. Quiñones. The crime is not robbery with infanticide because there is no such crime. They robbed each of the quarters. one of the offenders placed his firearm on the table. That there were several killings done would only aggravate the commission of the crime of robbery with homicide. whether the person killed is connected with the robbery or not. Within the compound. regardless of the persons killed. The charge should be for robbery with homicide only because the number of persons killed is immaterial and does not increase the penalty prescribed in Article 294. * Although it is a crime against property and treachery is an aggravating circumstance that applies only to crimes against persons. it was held that there is no crime of robbery with multiple homicides. that would only be part of a single robbery. the firearm fell on the floor and discharged. It will still be robbery with homicide. there were quarters of the laborers. * With more reason. * In People v. Note. which is actually a sugar mill. 183 SCRA 747. Even though the placing of the firearm on the table where there is no safety precaution taken may be considered as one of negligence or imprudence. * Note that the person killed need not be one who is identified with the owner of the place where the robbery is committed or one who is a stranger to the robbers. * In another case. you only have one crime of robbery with homicide. After they left such house these two robbers decided to cut or divide the loot already so that they can go of them. Illustration: There are two robbers who broke into a house and carried away some valuables. Thus. a band of robbers entered a compound. If there were killings done to different boarders during the robbery being committed in a boarder’s quarter. * When two or more persons are killed during the robbery. in the course of the struggle in a house where the robbery was being committed. the treachery will be considered a generic aggravating circumstance because of the homicide. * As long as there is only one robbery. The crime was held to be robbery with homicide. impelled by the same criminal intent to gain. While they were ransacking the place. they are only impelled by one criminal intent to rob and there will only be one case of robbery. one of the robbers stepped on a child less than three days old. which turned out to be a boarding house. the owner of the place tried to wrest the arm of the robber. and in one place. the offender took away property belonging to different owners. Illustration: Robbers decided to commit robbery in a house. Would that bring about the crime of robbery with homicide? Yes. The Supreme Court held that there was only one count of robbery because when they decided and determined to rob the compound. Illustration: On the occasion of a robbery.
Sigma Rho ( ΣΡ ) reviewers
174
. there would only be one count of robbery. therefore. such should be appreciated as an aggravating circumstance.Elements and Notes in Criminal Law Book II by RENE CALLANTA
The robbers enter the house. A person several meters away was the one who got killed. All the killings are merged in the composite integrated whole that is robbery with homicide so long as the killings were by reason or on occasion of the robbery. One of the robbers was the one killed. that “one robbery” does not mean there is only one taking. however. As a result. It is enough that the homicide was committed by reason of the robbery or on the occasion thereof. it is immaterial who gets killed. you do not separate the homicide as one of the product of criminal negligence. It refers to any kind of death. Now this robber who was boxed then pulled out his gun and fired at the other one killing the latter. The word homicide as used in defining robbery with homicide is used in the generic sense. as long as the taking was done at one time. So while they are dividing the loot the other robber noticed that the one doing the division is trying to cheat him and so he immediately boxed him. Even though the killing may have resulted from negligence. do not consider that as separate counts of robbery with homicide because when robbers decide to commit robbery in a certain house. * In robbery with homicide as a single indivisible offense. they were only impelled by one criminal intent to rob. you will still designate the crime as robbery with homicide. If there were homicide or death committed. * In one case. There is only one count of robbery.

the accused should be convicted of robbery only and the penalty shall not be based under paragraph 1 but on paragraph 5 of the same article. which deals with crimes against property. or whether both crimes were committed at the same time. * The victims were killed first then their money was taken the money from their dead bodies. 184 SCRA 409. appellants had not thought of robbery prior to the killing.Elements and Notes in Criminal Law Book II by RENE CALLANTA
* In People v. Illustration: If a person had an enemy and killed him and after killing him. 184 SCRA 409. * For robbery with homicide to exist. Appellants were convicted of two separate crimes of homicide and theft as there is absent direct relation and intimate connection between the robbery and the killing. and the idea of taking the money and other personal property of the victims was conceived by the culprits only after the killing. Hernandez. Domingo. if several homicides are alleged in the information for robbery with homicide. such as the provision of Article 48. the crime would be not robbery with homicide because the primary criminal intent is to kill. a septuagenarian. It is important here that the intent to commit robbery must precede the taking of human life in robbery with homicide . homicide must be committed by reason or on the occasion of the robbery. * Where the victims were killed. an intimate connection between the robbery and the killing. If the primordial intent of the offender is to kill and not to rob but after the killing of the victims a robbery was committed. where there exists a direct relation. that is. In People v. as when the robbery resulted only in the commission of frustrated homicide. there will be two crimes: one for the killing and one for the taking of the property after the victim was killed. not for the purpose of committing robbery. the court will impose a separate penalty for each of the homicide that is established by the evidence. * If the robbery is not proven but the homicide is established . * It must be conclusively shown that the homicide was committed for the purpose of robbing the victim. * If robbery is proved but the homicide is not proven . Domingo. * If the motive is to kill and the taking is committed thereafter.” Robbery and homicide are separate offenses when the homicide is not committed “on the occasion” or “by reason” of the robbery. and all of these homicides are proven beyond reasonable doubt. without reference to the circumstances or causes or persons intervening in the commission of the crime which must be considered. The thought of taking the victim’s wristwatch was conceived only after the killing and throwing of the victim in the canal. it was held in People v. It was held that the crime committed was robbery with homicide. then the accused should be held liable only for homicide and the penalty shall be taken from Article 249. irrespective of whether the killing be prior or subsequent to the robbery. Now this would bring about the crime of theft and it could not be robbery anymore because the person is already dead. that the culprits committed two separate crimes of homicide or murder (qualified by abuse of superior strength) and theft. * Remember also that intent to rob must be proved. But there must be an allegation as to the robbery not only as to the intention to rob. (People vs. so. the crimes committed are homicide and theft. because it is only the result which matters.
* However. saw that he had a beautiful ring and took this. if the elements of the crime of robbery with violence employed against persons. It is immaterial that death supervened as a mere accident as long as the homicide was produced by reason or on the occasion of the robbery . the homicide must be committed “in the course or because of the robbery. then there are will be two separate crimes. Barruga. 318)
* It is important to remember that the special complex crime of robbery with homicide is committed. fail to meet the requirements of Article 294. 61 Phil. (People vs. So. the storeowner. 87 SCRA 130)
Sigma Rho ( ΣΡ ) reviewers
175
. suffered a stroke due to the extreme fear which directly caused his death when the robbers pointed their guns at him. since only intimidation or violence was employed and it did not result in any of the situations mentioned in paragraphs 1 to 4. The offender must have the intent to take personal property before the killing. then Article 294 should be ignored and the general provision of the law should be applied. on the occasion of the robbery. Puesca. This is robbery with homicide.

that would extinguish the criminal liability because the rape is the subject of a separate prosecution. which is a crime against property. What constitutes the crime as robbery with homicide is the killing of a person on the occasion or by reason of the taking of personal property belonging to another with intent to gain. Macalalad. there is only a crime of robbery with rape if both the robbery and the rape are consummated. So. * The same principle has been applied by the Supreme Court where the crime committed is robbery accompanied by rape. Neither is rape necessary to commit robbery. The offender would still be prosecuted for the crime of robbery with rape.
* The killing on the occasion of robbery may come in different forms.
* Pardon by the offended party will not alter the criminal liability of the offender because in robbery with rape. * When rape and homicide co-exist. the Supreme Court ruled that whenever homicide is committed as a consequence or on the occasion of a robbery. all those who took part in the commission of the robbery are guilty as principals in the crime of robbery with homicide unless it appears that the principal claiming innocence in the killing. the crime committed is not a crime against chastity but a crime against property. by express provision of law. * The rape committed on the occasion of the robbery is not considered a private crime because the crime is robbery. that would bring about a bar to the prosecution of the attempted rape. who was raped on the occasion of the robbery. attempted rape were committed. If during the robbery. If the offender married the offended woman. as long as the rape is consummated. even though the robber may have married the woman raped. since it will be a separate charge and the offended woman pardoned the offender. pardoned the rapist who is one of the robbers. * Prosecution of the crime need not be by offended party – fiscal can sign the information. 37 Phil. The rape is not erased. Even under the present amendment which classifies rape as a crime against person.
* If the rape is attempted. that would not erase the crime of rape. 9 Phil. * In People vs. a single crime notwithstanding that there is a plurality of crimes committed. that is. or 2) when the killing is done in order to prevent or remove any opposition which the victim may put up as regards the taking of his personal belongings.
* This is another form of violence or intimidation upon person. (People vs. 95)
ROBBERY WITH RAPE –
* intent to commit robbery must precede rape. has attempted or tried to prevent the killing. The burden of proving the attempt to prevent others from killing the victim rests on the co-principal of the crime who makes such assertion or claim.
Sigma Rho ( ΣΡ ) reviewers
176
. In this case where rape and not homicide is committed. one for robbery and one for the attempted rape.Elements and Notes in Criminal Law Book II by RENE CALLANTA
* Robbery with homicide need not be committed inside a building . (1907). The rape accompanies the robbery. This is because the crime is against property which is a single indivisible offense. the crimes would be separate. Tiongco. the crime remains robbery with rape. The criminal liability of the person or persons who took no part in the commission of the rape which accompanied the robbery is the same as the robber or robbers who actually committed the rape unless the robber or robbers claiming innocence of the rape had endeavored to prevent the commission of the rape. the change has no legal effect on the provision of Article 294 since the special complex crime of robbery with rape is considered. 4) Or it may be resorted to by the offender to facilitate his escape after the commission of the robbery. * If the woman. 3) The killing may also result from the offender’s defense of his possession of the stolen goods. 1) It may be done by the offender for the purpose of suppressing evidence. rape should be considered as aggravating only and the crime is still robbery with homicide * Article 48 is not applicable to this crime because robbery is not a necessary means for the commission of rape. like when the victim is killed because he happens to know the person of the offender.

The taking of the victim’s valuables turned out to be an afterthought. So.
* If rape was the primary objective of the accused and the taking of her jewelries was not done with intent to gain but as a token of her supposed consent to the sexual intercourse. and then he snatched the vanity case from her hands when she ran away. to urinate. No. * In People v.
* In People v. two distinct crimes – rape and robbery were committed – not robbery with rape. he suffers less serious or slight physical injuries in the hands of the offender. two crimes are committed by the offender: theft and grave threat. (People vs. it is necessary that violence must be employed by the offender in order that the taking may be considered as robbery. rape her and kill her. In such a case. Villarino. C. The Rape committed cannot be complexed with Robbery. and the man who had grabbed her brought her to a motel. * There is no complex crime under Article 48 because a single act is not committed and attempted rape is not a means necessary to commit theft and vice-versa. she saw the two (2) companions of the man carrying her typewriter and betamax and then joining them in the taxi. although the offenders plan was to get the victim’s money. They persisted in satisfying their lust. Angeles. the accused is guilty of two distinct crimes: rape and unjust vexation. the two (2) companions left her. namely.Elements and Notes in Criminal Law Book II by RENE CALLANTA
* The intention must be to commit robbery and even if the rape is committed before the robbery . robbery with rape is committed. there is no complex crime of Robbery with Rape. It was held that two distinct crimes were committed: rape with homicide and theft. where the taking is without violence or intimidation and the same is complete. during or after the robbery.m. Flores. and dragged her out of the house and was made to board a taxi. the thoughts of depriving the victim of her valuables was relegated to the background and the offender’s prurient desires surfaced. 26. A. R. In the latter. it was held that if the original criminal design of the accused was to commit rape and after committing the rape. G. 195 SCRA 295. when complainant went out of her room about 1:30 a. They would have forgotten about their intent to rob if not for the accidental touching of the victim’s ring and wristwatch. Thus. 1951)
ROBBERY WITH INTIMIDATION –
* acts done by the accused which by their own nature or by reason of the circumstances inspire fear in the person against whom they are directed * In the taking of personal property. but the victim pursued the offender in order to recover the personal property taken and by the reason thereof. Nov. the accused committed robbery because the opportunity presented itself. 183 SCRA 493. the violence employed on the victim which resulted to his injuries will not convert the taking of his personal property to robbery. one of the accused grabbed her. * The intimidation must be present at the time of the taking before it is completed . (People vs. But if the accused tried to rape the offended party and because of resistance. the
Sigma Rho ( ΣΡ ) reviewers
177
. the criminal intent to gain must precede the intent to rape. two crimes are committed: attempted rape and theft. the crimes committed are Robbery and Forcible Abduction with Rape. 222 SCRA 451). * If violence is employed against the offended party in order to deprive him of his personal property and the violence resulted to the infliction of less serious or slight physical injuries.
* If the two (2) crimes were separated both by time and place. but in the actual execution of the crime. 6342-R. theft and less serious or slight physical injuries. he failed to consummate the act. * The Revised Penal Code does not differentiate whether rape was committed before. If the taking is completed without intimidation and it is employed by the offender only to prevent the owner from recovering his stolen property. Robbery must not be a mere accident or afterthought. the offender is liable for two crimes. and that after alighting from the taxi. where by means of force and intimidation he was able to have sex with her. poked an icepick on her neck . Dinola. and before boarding. It is enough that the robbery accompanied the rape.

The physical injuries (serious) should not be separated regardless of whether they retorted in the course of the commission of the robbery or even after the robbery was consummated. or got insane. lost the use of any part of his body. This is because robbery with violence or intimidation upon persons is a separate crime from robbery with force upon things. 21 Phil 161)
On ROBBERY WITH PHYSICAL INJURIES
* To be considered as such. the crime would still be robbery with serious physical injuries. the crime would still be robbery with homicide. they are absorbed in the robbery. the physical injuries must always be serious. * If on the occasion of the robbery with homicide. You charge the offenders of robbery with homicide. the crime will still be robbery with serious physical injuries. the crime will only be robbery and a separate charge for the serious physical injuries because when it is a deformity that is caused. must have been inflicted in the course of the execution of the robbery or while the robbery was taking place. it will not give rise to the crime of robbery with serious physical injuries. Hence. during or on the occasion or by reason of the robbery. there will only be one crime of robbery with homicide because all of these – killing. robbery with force upon things was also committed.are contemplated by law as the violence or intimidation which characterizes the taking as on of robbery. CA). There will only be one count of accusation. It will only be absorbed in the robbery if it was inflicted in the course of the execution of the robbery. serious physical injuries -. the owner or members of the family of the owner chased them. rape or serious physical injuries took place. They will only call for the imposition of the penalty in the maximum period. there is no crime of robbery with less serious or slight injuries. (U. They shot it out and one of the robbers was killed. Illustration: After the robbery had been committed and the robbers were already fleeing from the house where the robbery was committed. S. the physical injuries which gave rise to the deformity or which incapacitated the offended party from labor for more than 30 days. But if the less serious physical injuries were committed after the robbery was already consummated. If the physical injuries are only less serious or slight. But if serious physical injuries were inflicted and the serious physical injuries rendered the victim impotent or insane or the victim lost the use of any of his senses or lost a part of his body. the crime will still be robbery with serious physical injuries. * If the robbers quarreled over the loot and one of the robbers hacked the other robber causing a deformity in his face. rape. it cannot be considered as inflicted in the course of execution of the robbery and hence. Barroga. The crime becomes merely robbery. the law requires that the deformity must have been inflicted upon one who is not a participant in the robbery. blind in both eyes. * But if after the robbery was committed and the robbers were already fleeing from the house where the robbery was committed. and even though it had been inflicted after the robbery was already consummated. The crime is still robbery with homicide even though one of the robbers was the one killed by one of them. Moreover.Elements and Notes in Criminal Law Book II by RENE CALLANTA
crime committed would only be robbery. there will be separate crimes: one for robbery and one for less serious physical injuries. If only less serious physical injuries were inflicted. and only upon persons who are not responsible in the commission of the robbery. You only have one count of robbery and another count for the serious physical injuries inflicted. Illustration: After the robbers fled from the place where the robbery was committed. The rape or physical injuries will only be appreciated as aggravating circumstance and is not the subject of a separate prosecution . it is only when the physical injuries resulted in the deformity or incapacitated the offended party from labor for more than 30 days that the law requires such physical injuries to have been inflicted in the course of the execution of the robbery. * If it was inflicted when the thieves/robbers are already dividing the spoils. * In Article 299. a killing.
Sigma Rho ( ΣΡ ) reviewers
178
. If they quarreled and serious physical injuries rendered one of the robbers impotent. * But if the physical injuries inflicted are those falling under subdivision 1 and 2 of Article 263. even though the physical injuries were inflicted upon one of the robbers themselves. the owner of the house chased them and the robbers fought back. there would be a separate charge for the less serious physical injuries. you will not have only one robbery but you will have a complex crime of robbery with homicide and robbery with force upon things (see Napolis v. they decided to divide the spoils and in the course of the division of the spoils or the loot. * If. The same is true in the case of slight physical injuries. they quarreled. and they fought back and somebody was killed. vs. or he lost the use of any of his senses.

On ROBBERY WITH ARSON
* Another innovation of Republic Act No. such that the offenders had no choice but to detain the victims as hostages in exchange for their safe passage. the detention is absorbed by the crime of robbery and is not a separate crime. highway or alley and the intimidation is made with the use of firearms. the offenders herded the women and children into an office and detained them to compel the offended party to come out with the money. * Moreover. the crime of serious illegal detention was a necessary means to facilitate the robbery. 7659 is the composite crime of robbery with arson if arson is committed by reason of or on occasion of the robbery. road. 4 and 5 of Art 294 is committed: a. the offender shall be punished by the max period of the proper penalties prescribed in art 294 Notes: * Must be alleged in the information * Can’t be offset by generic mitigating * Art 295 will not apply to: robbery w/ homicide. on a street. * So. * In People v. rape. the band or uninhabited place is only a generic aggravating circumstance. and the arson would only be an aggravating circumstance. it was held that if in a robbery with serious physical injuries. rape or SPI under par 1 of art 263
Article 296 ROBBERY BY A BAND
Notes:
Sigma Rho ( ΣΡ ) reviewers
179
. 3. by entering the passenger’s compartments in a train. street car. * But if the victims were detained because of the timely arrival of the police. This was the ruling in People v. or robbery with rape.Elements and Notes in Criminal Law Book II by RENE CALLANTA
* Robbery with homicide. as in the case of rape and intentional mutilation. Astor. if the robbery was by the use of force upon things and therewith arson was committed . in that order. by attacking a moving train. robbery with intentional mutilation and robbery with rape are not qualified by band or uninhabited place. the crime would be robbery with homicide. Otherwise. because the amendment included arson among the rape and intentional mutilation which have accompanied the robbery. * When it is robbery with homicide. Salvilla. or robbery with intentional mutilation. It will not qualify the crime to a higher degree of penalty. The composite crime would only be committed if the primordial intent of the offender is to commit robbery and there is no killing. These aggravating circumstances only qualify robbery with physical injuries under subdivision 2. if any of the offenses defined in subdivisions 3. It is essential that robbery precedes the arson. thus. motor vehicle or airship. in an uninhabited place or b. it should be noted that arson has been made a component only of robbery with violence against or intimidation of persons in said Article 294. or e. or d. and 4 of Article 299. but not of robbery by the use of force upon things in Articles 299 and 302. or in any manner taking the passengers thereof by surprise in the respective conveyances. two distinct crimes are committed. the complex crimes of robbery with serious physical injuries and serious illegal detention.
Article 295 QUALIFIED ROBBERY WITH VIOLENCE OR INTIMIDATION
Qualifying circumstances in robbery with violence or intimidation of persons. by a band or c. or intentional mutilation committed by the offender during the robbery.

the penalty prescribed by Article 48 shall be observed. Consequently. the conviction of a principal by inducement will only be limited to his criminal liability as a co-conspirator. so that. any member who was present at the commission of the robbery and who did not do anything to prevent the killing of the victim on the occasion of the robbery shall be held liable for the crime of robbery with homicide. he was present at the commission of a robbery by that band c. 294 has no application because the robbery and the homicide must be both consummated. band is a special aggravating circumstance which must be alleged in the information. In such a case. since the law requires as a condition to its commission the actual participation of the offender in the execution of the crime.
Article 297 ATTEMPTED OR FRUSTRATED ROBBERY WITH HOMICIDE
Notes: * Whether robbery is attempted or frustrated. 4 and 5. Article 297 does not apply. whether long or short. Liability for the acts of the other members of the band a. other members of the band committed an assault d.
Article 298 EXECUTION OF DEEDS BY MEANS OF VIOLENCE OR INTIMIDATION
ELEMENTS:
Sigma Rho ( ΣΡ ) reviewers
180
. In such a case. Art. * The arms contemplated under this article refers to any deadly weapon and is not limited to firearms. (People vs. he did not attempt to prevent the assault Conspiracy to commit robbery with homicide – even if less than 4 armed men Conspiracy to commit robbery only but homicide was committed also on the occasion thereof – all members of the band are liable for robbery with homicide * Even if the agreement refers only to the robbery. * Band is a special aggravating circumstance if the robbery results in the infliction of serious physical injuries. 194 SCRA 535) * Conspiracy is presumed when 4 or more armed persons committed robbery * Unless the others attempted to prevent the assault – guilty of robbery by band only * Band is a generic aggravating circumstance in the crime of robbery with homicide or rape. the crime shall be treated under the provisions of Article 48 on ordinary complex crimes. Cinco.Elements and Notes in Criminal Law Book II by RENE CALLANTA
BAND is defined as consisting of at least four armed malefactors organized with the intention of carrying out any unlawful design. The offender must be principal by direct participation. nonetheless. where the robbery is committed by a band and a person is killed. Their participation in the commission of the crime must be actual. a principal by inducement cannot be convicted of this crime where the aggravating circumstance of band shall be appreciated against him. In the same manner. where the attempted or frustrated robbery results in the commission of serious physical injuries. * Where the homicide is only attempted or frustrated. Article 297 has no application. But in the other circumstances provided under Article 294 particularly paragraphs 3. he was a member of the band b. penalty is the same * When the robbery is attempted or frustrated.

c. or (c) edifice devoted to religious worship. Callotes. the offender took personal property belonging to another with intent to gain. 523). in coercion. NO ROBBERY * In the absence of evidence to show how bandits effected an entrance into the convent which they robbed.Elements and Notes in Criminal Law Book II by RENE CALLANTA
1. or floor or breaking any door or window. or deliver any public instrument or document. 2 PHIL 16 )
"FORCE UPON THINGS" has a technical meaning in law. etc. no violence or intimidation against persons is ever used. 39 Phil. b. By breaking any wall. In coercion. If no entry was effected. Although both crimes share a common element which is the compelling of any person to do something against his will.S. The force upon things contemplated requires some element of trespass into the establishment where the robbery was committed . picklocks or similar tools or. The act would be treated as Theft. That the offender has intent to defraud another. ship or vessel constituting the dwelling of one or more person even though temporarily absent – dependencies. LANDS FOR CULTIVATION. nonetheless. etc. window. there being no partition between the store and the house and in going to the main stairway. hallways. there can be no conviction under this article. 2. 3. wall or floor of the
Sigma Rho ( ΣΡ ) reviewers
181
. the crime will only be theft. 3. Ventura. barns. That the entrance was effected by any of the following means: a. That the offender compels him to sign. * Important for robbery by use of force upon things. That the offender entered (a) an inhabited house. ( U. vs. That the compulsion is by means of violence or intimidation. courts. Through an opening not intended for entrance or egress.S.
Article 299 ROBBERY IN AN INHABITED HOUSE OR PUBLIC BUILDING OR EDIFICE DEVOTED TO WORSHIP
ELEMENTS: 1. * NOT INCLUDED – ORCHARD. it is necessary that offender enters the building or where object may be found. 2. or (b) public buildings. * Includes dependencies (stairways. Notes: * In this kind of Robbery.) * A small store located on the ground floor of a house is a dependency of the house. one has to enter the store which has a door. It means the employment of force to effect entrance into the house or building by destroying the door. roof. That once inside the building. NO ENTRY. the fear is immediate and not remote. the fear created in the mind of the offended party is not immediate but remote. In this type of robbery. By using any fictitious name or pretending the exercise of public authority. corals. even though force may have been employed actually in the taking of the property from within the premises. * The element of intent to gain or fraudulent intent is what distinguishes this felony from grave coercion. By using false keys. INHABITED HOUSE – any shelter. the offender must have entered the premises where the robbery was committed. there is no intent to gain whereas in this form of robbery. Not any kind of force upon things will characterize the taking as one of robbery. In other words. execute. intent to gain is an indispensable element. roof.
* The term force upon things has a legal meaning. vs. (U. d.

P v. B claimed he is an inspector from the local city government to look after the electrical installations. It is the breaking of the receptacle or closet or cabinet where the personal property is kept that will give rise to robbery. He asked B what the latter was doping there. At night. If those means do not come within the definition under the Revised Penal Code.Elements and Notes in Criminal Law Book II by RENE CALLANTA
aforesaid house or building. Illustration: On a sari-sari store. a vehicle bumped the wall. that would characterize the taking of personal property inside as robbery because the window is not an opening intended for entrance. only Theft. * Modes of entering that would give rise to the crime of robbery with force upon things if something is taken inside the premises: entering into an opening not intended for entrance or egress. If the entering were done through the window. under Article 299 (a). The wall collapsed. So anything he took inside without breaking of any sealed or closed receptacle will not give rise to robbery because the simulation of public authority was made not in order to enter but when he has already entered.
Illustration: A found B inside his (A’s) house. The crime will already be robbery if he takes property from within because that is not an opening intended for the purpose. that would already qualify the taking of any personal property inside as robbery. At the time B was chanced upon by A. In other words. floor or window. The fire escape was intended for egress. rented or used by the government (though owned by private persons) though temporarily vacant * Not robbery – passing through open door but getting out of a window * If accused entered the house through a door. The entering will not give rise to robbery even if something is taken inside. although it may not be intended for entrance. without breaking of any sealed or closed receptacle. Lamahang – intent to rob being present is necessary Place: house or building. There was a small opening there. a robbery will be committed if any personal property is taken from within. floor or window after taking personal property inside the house – there is no Robbery committed. and it was while escaping that he broke any wall. not to get out but to enter – therefore. anything taken inside. 2. will not give rise to robbery.
Sigma Rho ( ΣΡ ) reviewers
182
. roof. * Those means must be employed in entering. not car PUBLIC BUILDING – every building owned. The entry will not characterize the taking as one of robbery because it is an opening intended for egress. By mere entering alone. locked receptacle to be broken outside the premises. Illustration: The entry was made through a fire escape. If the offender had already entered when these means were employed. it would not give rise to robbery with force upon things.
* If by the mere entering. * Note that in the crime of robbery with force upon things. evidence to such effect is necessary
Two predicates that will give rise to the crime as robbery: 1. the force upon things has no reference to personal property but to a house or building which is ordinarily classified as real property. The breaking of things inside the premises will only be important to consider if the entering by itself will not characterize the crime as robbery with force upon things. or the taking of a sealed. Even of there is a breaking of wall. * Entrance is necessary – mere insertion of hand is not enough (whole body). a man entered through that opening without breaking the same . what should be considered is the means of entrance and means of taking the personal property from within. it is immaterial whether the offender stays inside the premises. he has already entered. the taking will only give rise to theft. even if the window was not broken. but the offender did not enter.

the interpretation was that in order that there be a breaking of the door in contemplation of law. Even if it is not the door that was broken but only the lock. They went inside and broke in .. Where the house is a private building or is uninhabited. Theft – if lock is merely removed or door was merely pushed
* Breaking of the door under Article299 (b) – Originally. the breaking of the cabinet door would characterize the taking as robbery. theft (for latter to be robbery. 299 Sigma Rho ( ΣΡ ) reviewers
183
. SUBDIVISION (B) ART. there must be some damage to the door. or in a public building or in a place devoted to religious worship. and so the occupant opened the door.Elements and Notes in Criminal Law Book II by RENE CALLANTA
* Outside door must be broken. otherwise. EXCEPTION: inside door in a separate dwelling
* If in the course of committing the robbery within the premises some interior doors are broken. otherwise. the use of false key or picklock will not give rise to the robbery with force upon things because these are considered by law as only a means to gain entrance. and not a place devoted to religious worship. the taking inside is considered robbery with force upon things. the use of fictitious name or pretension to possess authority in order to gain entrance will characterize the taking inside as robbery with force upon things.
ELEMENTS OF ROBBERY WITH FORCE UPON THINGS. The guard obliged.
Question & Answer Certain men pretended to be from the Price Control Commission and went to a warehouse owned by a private person. smashed. the cabinet keeps the contents thereof safe. the breaking of the lock renders the door useless and it is therefore tantamount to the breaking of the door. What crime was committed? It is only theft because the premises where the simulation of public authority was committed is not an inhabited house. They loaded some of the merchandise inside claiming that it is the product of hoarding and then drove away. the closed door was opened. RULE: outside door. if the door was not damaged but only the lock attached to the door was broken. the crime is only theft. or that they were NBI agents executing a warrant of arrest. it’s robbery by violence and intimidation against persons * False key – used in opening house and not furniture inside. and because of that. adopted for commission of robbery KEY – stolen not by force.
FALSE KEYS – genuine keys stolen from the owner or any keys other than those intended by the owner for use in the lock PICKLOCKS – specially made. and not to extract personal belongings from the place where it is being kept. * But if it is the door of a cabinet that is broken and the valuable inside the cabinet was taken. would be Robbery. Although that particular door is not included as part of the house. not a public building. the taking from inside the room where the door leads to will only give rise to theft. They told the guard to open the warehouse purportedly to see if the private person is hoarding essential commodities there. pretending to be police to be able to enter (not pretending after entrance)
* When the robbery is committed in a house which is inhabited. * Before. any taking personal property thereat with intent to gain.
GEN. must be broken and not just opened)
* Use of picklocks or false keys refers to the entering into the premises – If the picklock or false key was used not to enter the premises because the offender had already entered but was used to unlock an interior door or even a receptacle where the valuable or personal belonging was taken.
* If A and B told the occupant of the house that they were the nephews of the spouse of the owner of the house. But the ruling is now abandoned because the door is considered useless without the lock. even though there is simulation of public authority in committing the taking or even if he used a fictitious name. the taking from within is only theft. The breaking of doors contemplated in the law refers to the main door of the house and not the interior door.g.
> E. Hence.

Public building – Includes every building owned by the government or belonging to a private person but used or rented by the government. by taking such furniture or objects away to be broken or forced open outside the place of the robbery. (U. 39 Phil. Notes: * Entrance ( no matter how done)
* If the entering does not characterize the taking inside as one of robbery with force upon things. PUBLIC BUILDING OR BUILDING DEDICATED TO RELIGIOUS WORSHIP AND THEIR DEPENDENCIES
Notes:
Inhabited house – Any shelter. That the offender takes personal property belonging to another with intent to gain. It may refer to a building or a house which is not used as a dwelling. 523)
Article 301 WHAT IS AN INHABITED HOUSE. or edifice devoted to religious worship. granaries or enclosed places: a. is guilty of robbery if he forcibly opens the said cabinet and takes the money contained therein. or any other kind of locked or sealed furniture or receptacle. public building.Elements and Notes in Criminal Law Book II by RENE CALLANTA
1. their casual absence will not make the place or house uninhabited. a. locked or closed receptacles or cabinet in order to get the personal belongings from within such receptacles. ship. regardless of the circumstances under which he entered it 2. although temporarily unoccupied by the same. * When sealed box is taken out for the purpose of breaking it. by the breaking of doors. warehouses.
* The place considered uninhabited when it is not used as a dwelling. vs. Ventura. or b. That the offender is inside a dwelling house. contiguous to the building
Sigma Rho ( ΣΡ ) reviewers
184
. or vessel constituting the dwelling of one or more persons. chests. it is the conduct inside that would give rise to the robbery if there would be a breaking of sealed. wardrobes. cabinet or place where it is kept. no need to open – already consummated robbery Estafa – if box is in the custody of accused Theft – if box found outside and forced open
Article 300 ROBBERY IN AN UNINHABITED PLACE AND BY A BAND
* When the robbery with force upon things is committed in an uninhabited place and by a band. under any of the following circumstances. the robbery becomes qualified. the crime becomes qualified.
* Offender may be servants or guests * A friend who has invited in a house and who enters a room where he finds a closed cabinet where money is kept. corrals. In the same manner. S. where robbery with violence against or intimidation of persons is committed by a band or in an uninhabited place. even though the inhabitants thereof shall temporarily be absent therefrom when the robbery is committed.
dependencies – are all interior courts. * If a house is inhabited and its owners or occupants temporarily left the place to take a short vacation in another place.

That with intent to gain the offender took therefrom personal property belonging to another. that any of the following circumstances was present: a. which form part of the whole Garage – must have 3 requirements. Notes: * Second kind of robbery with force upon things * It must be taken note of. 49 Phil. freight car. warehouse. Tubog. the information must allege that the same was used and occupied as a dwelling (People vs. store. fruits. That the offender entered an uninhabited place or a building which was not a dwelling house. chest. having an interior entrance connected therewith c. * Same manner as 299 except that was entered into was an uninhabited place or a building other than the 3 mentioned in 299.Elements and Notes in Criminal Law Book II by RENE CALLANTA
b. or outside door or window was broken. That entrance was effected through an opening not intended for entrance or egress. c. picklocks or other similar tools. The entrance was effected through the use of false keys. Exception: orchards/lands
Article 302 ROBBERY IN AN UNINHABITED PLACE OR IN A PRIVATE BUILDING
ELEMENTS: 1. FRUITS OR FIRE WOOD IN AN UNINHABITED PLACE OR PRIVATE BUILDING
* Under Article 303. if the robbery under Article 299 and 302 consists in the taking of cereals. or not an edifice devoted to religious worship.
Sigma Rho ( ΣΡ ) reviewers
185
. the penalty depends on the amount taken disregarding the circumstances of whether the robbers are armed or not as in the case in Robbery in Inhabited Place. that the entrance by using any fictitious name or pretending the exercise of public authority is not among those mentioned in Article 302 because the place is Uninhabited and therefore without person present. 620). d. otherwise Art. b. 3. wardrobe. A wall. roof. Exception: does not include use of fictitious name or pretending the exercise of public authority * Breaking of padlock (but not door) is only theft False keys – genuine keys stolen from the owner or any other keys other than those intended by the owner for use in the lock forcibly opened
Article 303 ROBBERY OF CEREALS. Although it may be used as a dwelling to sustain a conviction under Article 299. the penalty imposable is lower. in this class of Robbery. or firewood. Exception: pigsty * A store may or may not be an inhabited place depending upon the circumstances of whether or not it is usually occupied by any person lodging therein at night. A door. UNINHABITED PLACE – is an uninhabited building (habitable. not any of the 3 places mentioned) Ex. Likewise. even if the same be broken open elsewhere. 302 is applicable. floor. 2. or any sealed or closed furniture or receptacle was broken or e. A closed or sealed receptacle was removed. not a public building.

2.
Article 304 ILLEGAL POSSESSION OF PICKLOCKS OR SIMILAR TOOLS
ELEMENTS: 1. The purpose is any of the following: a. 2. If the manufacturer or maker or locksmith himself is the offender. or for any other purpose to be attained by means of force and violence. That such picklocks or similar tools are specially adopted to the commission of robbery. To commit robbery in the highway. 3.
Article 306 WHO ARE BRIGANDS
BRIGANDS – more than three armed persons forming a band Elements of brigandage: 1. To kidnap persons for the purpose of extortion or to obtain ransom. fruits or firewood were taken outside a building and its dependencies. it however refers to uninhabited building and its dependencies. not robbery (not stolen)
BRIGANDAGE
Brigandage – This is a crime committed by more than three armed persons who form a band of robbers for the purpose of committing robbery in the highway or kidnapping persons for the purpose of extortion or to obtain ransom.
Article 305 FALSE KEYS
WHAT CONSTITUTES: 1. Note: Actual use of the same is not necessary * The law also prohibits the manufacture or fabrication of such tools. Any key other than those intended by owner for use in the lock forcibly opened by the offender Notes: * Possession of false keys here not punishable * If key was entrusted and used to steal. 3. Picklocks. Can he be charged of illegal possession of picklocks or similar tools? The answer is NO since the same possession of these tools is already absorbed in the graver crime of robbery. etc. a higher penalty is prescribed by law. 2. It may include palay or unhulled palay. * While the law uses the term uninhabited place. Genuine key stolen from owner. b. the offender used a picklock to enter a building. They formed a band of robbers. That the offender has in his possession picklocks or similar tools. the crime committed would only be theft even though the taking was done in an uninhabited place. or
Sigma Rho ( ΣΡ ) reviewers
186
. If the cereals. Supposing that in the crime of robbery. That the offender does not have lawful cause for such possession.Elements and Notes in Criminal Law Book II by RENE CALLANTA
* The word cereals however must be understood to mean “seedlings” or “semilla. There are least four armed persons.” It does not include hulled rice. 3.

Presumption of Brigandage: a. (b) extortion or other unlawful purpose.
* If the agreement among more than three armed men is to commit a particular robbery. the offender can be convicted of the crime of brigandage. there must be a band. > Seizure of any person for: (a) ransom. brigandage is not committed because the latter must be an agreement to commit robbery in general or indiscriminately. That the offender knows the band to be of brigands.
Article 307 AIDING AND ABETTING A BAND OF BRIGANDS
ELEMENTS: 1. 3. not necessarily in hi-way Mere formation of a band for If the purpose is to commit a part robbery the above purpose Necessary to prove that band actually committed robbery * There is no need for the band robbers to execute the object of their association in order to hold them criminally liable for the crime of brigandage. abets or protects such band of brigands. he gives them information of the movements of the police or other peace officers of the government or c. if the offenders are charged with robbery but the same is not established by the evidence and what appears clear are the elements of brigandage where the allegation in the information necessarily includes such offense. He acquires or receives the property taken by such brigands. he in any manner aids. One or two persons can be held liable under this law if they perpetrated their acts of depredation in Philippine Highways against persons who are not pre-determined victims.D. That the offender does any of the following acts: a. possession of any kind of arms (not just firearm) BRIGANDAGE ROBBERY IN BAND Purposes are given Only to commit robbery.Elements and Notes in Criminal Law Book II by RENE CALLANTA
c. To attain by means of force and violence any other purpose. (c) taking away of property by violence or intimidation or force upon things or other unlawful means > Committed by any person > On any Phil hi-way
Sigma Rho ( ΣΡ ) reviewers
187
.
* The primary object on the law on brigandage is to prevent the formation of bands of robbers. Notes: PD 532 – brigandage. * It does not mean however that to constitute violation of P. their criminal liability shall be limited to the commission of such crimes. That there is a band of brigands.
* Likewise. if the formed band commits robbery with the use of force upon persons or force upon things. 2. 532. or b. if members of lawless band and possession of unlicensed firearms (any of them) b. Hence.

532 is the seizure of any person for ransom. That the taking be accomplished without the use of violence against or intimidation of persons or force upon things. A single act of robbery against a particular person chosen by the offender as his specific victim. It is this brigandage which deserves some attention because not any robbery in a highway is brigandage or highway robbery. It does not require at least four armed persons forming a band of robbers. gives rise to brigandage. if there are at least four armed participants. the Supreme Court set aside the judgment and found the accused guilty of simple robbery as punished in Article 294 (5). That the taking be done with intent to gain. A distinction should be made between highway robbery/brigandage under the decree and ordinary robbery committed on a highway under the Revised Penal Code. crime of depredation wherein the unlawful acts are directed not only against specific. 532 refers to the actual commission of the robbery on the highway and can be committed by one person alone. The mere forming of a band. Highway robbery/brigandage under Presidential Decree No. 5. * In US v. If the purpose is only a particular robbery. Those who a) with intent to gain
Sigma Rho ( ΣΡ ) reviewers
188
. it was pointed out that highway robbery or brigandage is more than ordinary robbery committed on a highway. 532 and sentenced them to reclusion perpetua. 2. That there be taking of personal property. kidnapping for purposes of extortion or ransom. 1993. 532 introduced amendments to Article 306 and 307 by increasing the penalties. in relation to Article 295. even if committed on a highway. The purpose of brigandage is indiscriminate robbery in highways. is not highway robbery or brigandage. It does not create a presumption that the offender is a brigand when he an unlicensed firearm is used unlike the Revised Penal Code. That said property belongs to another. or the taking away of the property of another by means of violence against or intimidation of persons or force upon things or other unlawful means committed by any person on any Philippine highway. PERSONS LIABLE: 1. that is. * Presidential Decree No. On appeal. 3.
(2)
* Brigandage under Presidential Decree No.Elements and Notes in Criminal Law Book II by RENE CALLANTA
Distinction between brigandage under the Revised Penal Code and highway robbery/brigandage under Presidential Decree No. and sentenced them accordingly.
THEFT Article 308 THEFT
ELEMENTS: 1. or for any other purpose to be attained by force and violence. but against any and all prospective victims anywhere on the highway and whoever they may potentially be. 532: (1) Brigandage as a crime under the Revised Penal Code refers to the formation of a band of robbers by more than three armed persons for the purpose of committing robbery in the highway. 3 Phil. intended or preconceived victims. The Supreme Court pointed out that the purpose of brigandage “is. if for any of the criminal purposes stated in Article 306. That the taking be done without the consent of the owner. indiscriminate highway robbery. * In People v. extortion or for any other lawful purposes. Feliciano. 4. inter alia. Puno. which requires at least four armed persons. And that PD 532 punishes as highway robbery or Brigandage only acts of robbery perpetrated by outlaws indiscriminately against any person or persons on a Philippine highway as defined therein. the crime is only robbery or robbery in band. But the essence of brigandage under the Revised Penal Code is the same as that in the Presidential Decree. the trial court convicted the accused of highway robbery/ brigandage under Presidential Decree No. not acts committed against a predetermined or particular victim” . decided February 17. 422.

June 4. Those who a) after having maliciously damaged the property of another b) remove or make use of the fruits or object of the damage caused by them * Theft of damaged property occurs only after the accused has committed the crime of malicious mischief. he is liable for theft as to that share. knowledge of loss is enough * It is not necessary that the owner of the lost property be known to the accused. 720) * Knowledge of owner is not required. A. * Finder in law is liable
Hidden Treasure
Under Article 438 and 439 of the Civil Code. or through some casual occurrence. it is his duty to turn it over to the authorities. So. after force is employed to destroy a part of the corral to enter the same. the offender destroys the property of another because of hatred. 16 SCRA 475) * The felony is not limited to the actual finder. the finder of hidden treasure on the property of another and by chance is entitled to one-half of the treasure that he found. vs. Longdew. 9380-R. What is important is that he knows or has reason to know that the property was lost and for this fact alone. (People vs. If he does otherwise. 1953) 3. (U. Those who a) enter an enclosed estate or a field where b) trespass is forbidden or which belongs to another and. G. If he appropriates the other half pertaining to the owner of the property. No. Avila. Those who a) having found lost property b) fail to deliver the same to local authorities or its owner Notes: * Retention of money/property found is theft. R. Rodrigo. 300)
2. Retention is failure to return (intent to gain) * The word “lost” is used in the generic sense. C. is considered merely as theft because corral is not a building nor a dependency of a building. Theft of a lost property may be committed even by a person who is not the actual finder. Rosales. (People vs. without the consent of its owner c) hunts or fish upon the same or gather fruits. as well as the act of the owner.. cereals or other forest or farm products
Sigma Rho ( ΣΡ ) reviewers
189
. 44 Phil. resentment or other evil motive against the owner. a neighbor who shoots and kills a goat which has destroyed his flower plants and thereafter slaughters and eats the meat of the wandering goat is guilty of theft. 1 Phil.Elements and Notes in Criminal Law Book II by RENE CALLANTA
b) But without violence against or intimidation of persons nor force upon things c) take personal property of another d) without the latter’s consent
•
The taking from an enclosed corral of a carabao belonging to another. et al. (People vs. then the crime of theft is committed. 4. In malicious mischief. His duty is to tell the owner about the treasure. It embraces loss by stealing or any act of a person other than the owner. like. if he sells the thing to another. S.

and any other commercial documents may be the object of theft because while they may not be of value to the accused. G.
* Includes electricity and gas a. Dino – applies only in theft of bulky goods (meaning there has to be capacity to dispose of the things). inspector misreads meter to earn b. 1) In such a case. by contract of bailment
* Juridical possession of a thing is transferred to another when he receives the thing in trust or on commission or for administration. the law makes only of the term “ taking” and not “taking away. one using a jumper
Personal Property
Personal property in the crime of theft includes electric current or properties that may have no material or concrete appearance. he cannot be held guilty of theft but of estafa because here. * Selling share of co-partner is not theft
The personal property must belong to another. The property need not be actually taken away by the thief.Elements and Notes in Criminal Law Book II by RENE CALLANTA
Notes: Theft is consummated when offender is able to place the thing taken under his control and in such a situation as he could dispose of it at once (though no opportunity to dispose) i. 441)
Sigma Rho ( ΣΡ ) reviewers
190
. or under a quasi-contract or a contract of bailment. felonious conversion. he has both the physical and juridical possession of the property. S.” The non-inclusion of the word “away” is significant because it means that as soon as the culprit takes possession of the things taken by him. 2641) P v. (U. vs. The test is not whether the subject is corporeal or incorporeal but whether it is incapable of appropriation by another from the owner . the crime of theft is already consummated since the law does not require that the thief be able to carry away the thing taken from the owner. (People vs. they are without doubt of value to the offended party. while it may not of value to the thief. It is enough that he has obtained. P v. therefore must exclude “joyride” Theft: if after custody (only material possession) of object was given to the accused. 46 O. Reyes. Raboy.. When possession by the offender is under any of these circumstances and he misappropriates the thing received. But it is estafa if juridical possession is transferred e. 63 Phil. Espiritu – full possession is enough * Servant using car without permission deemed qualified theft though use was temporary Reyes says: there must be some character of permanency in depriving owner of the use of the object and making himself the owner.g. 55 SCRA 563) * The consummation of the crime of theft takes place upon the voluntary and malicious taking of the property belonging to another which is realized by the material occupation of the thing . Koc Song. 369). 6 Phil.g. (People vs. Hence. adverse to the right of the lawful owner. promissory notes. checks. (People vs. Jaranilla. 25 Phil. complete control and possession of the thing desired. it is actually taken by him (no intent to return) e.
1. Naval. S. (U. it is undoubtedly of value to the offended party. A joint owner or partner who sells the palay to other persons or a co-owner or co-heir whp appropriates the whole property cannot be guilty of theft since the property cannot be said to belong to another. the control test * In the crime of theft. at some particular moment. Otherwise.e. the penalty shall be based on the amount of money represented by the checks or promissory note since.

One who deposits stolen property in a place where it cannot be found may be deemed to have such property in his possession. FISHING OR GATHERING FRUITS. the information must allege lack of consent. 1968)
Robbery and theft distinguished. IN ENCLOSED ESTATE (PAR. That there is an enclosed estate or a field where trespass is forbidden or which belongs to another. June 26. cereals or other forest or farm products. (L. does not commit theft for the simple reason that he is the owner of the thing taken by him. That the hunting or fishing or gathering of products is without the consent of the owner. an information which does not aver “lack of consent of the owner” would render the allegation insufficient and the information may be quashed for failure to allege an essential element of the crime. ART. and 4. prior to this. pleasure desired. In view of the clear text of the law. taking of Php is theft * If offender claims property as his own (in good faith) – not theft (though later found to be untrue.
* Where the charge of theft under the first sentence of Article 308. qualified Ortega Notes:
Sigma Rho ( ΣΡ ) reviewers
191
.
For robbery to exist. (Pua Yi Kun vs. it is necessary that personal property be taken against the will of the owner.
* Actual gain is not necessary (intent to gain necessary) * Allege lack of consent in info is important
Consent as an element of the crime of theft must be in the concept of consent that is freely given and not one which is inferred from mere lack of opposition on the part of the owner. Reyes) * Salary must be delivered first to employee. That the offender hunts or fishes upon the same or gathers fruits. whereas in theft.
Presumption:
A person found in possession of a thing taken in the recent doing of a wrongful act is the taker of the thing and the doer of the whole act. If in bad faith – theft) * Gain is not just Php – satisfaction. The allegation of “lack of consent” is indispensable under the first paragraph of Article 308 since the language or epigraph of the law expressly requires that the (unlawful) taking should be done without the consent of the owner.g.3. otherwise.
ELEMENTS OF HUNTING. People. it is sufficient that consent on the part of the owner is lacking.Elements and Notes in Criminal Law Book II by RENE CALLANTA
2. G. joyride)
Gain means the acquisition of a thing useful for the purpose of life. * Possession is not limited to actual personal custody. No. 308)
1. use. 2. That the offender enters the same. R. Note: Fish not in fishpond. One who takes away the property pledged by him to another without the latter’s consent. ETC. B. any benefit (e. 26256. It includes the benefit which in any other sense may be derived or expected from the act performed. 3. NO.

The crime includes the killing or taking the meat or hide of large cattle without the consent of the owner. People. The Presidential Decree. Jurisdiction is with the court of the place where the personal property subject of the robbery or theft was possessed. decided on July 11. the criminal intent is controlling. 533 is not a special law in the context of Article 10 of the Revised Penal Code. of any large cattle. the Anti-Cattle Rustling law of 1974. Presidential Decree No. kept. dela Cruz. does not supersede the crime of qualified theft of large cattle under Article 310 of the Revised Penal Code. is not a crime of malicious mischief but cattle-rustling. If the participant who profited is being prosecuted with person who robbed. the same can no longer be appreciated. This is explicit from Section 10 of the Presidential Decree. it follows that a possessor of stolen goods is presumed to have knowledge that the goods found in his possession after the fact of theft or robbery has been established. the minimum penalty shall be imposed under par.
Sigma Rho ( ΣΡ ) reviewers
192
. it was held that fencing is not a continuing offense. * If the property has some value but is not proven with reasonable certainty. If he is being prosecuted separately. with or without intent to gain and whether committed with or without violence against or intimidation of person or force upon things. In People v. 964). since the former should have been absorbed by cattle-rustling as killing was a result of or on the occasion of cattle-rustling. G. but received by the offender from the owner/overseer thereof. 43 O. Reyes. This is a malum prohibitum so intent is not material. bought. 533. Burden of proof is upon fence to overcome presumption. as the taking by any means. Cattle Rustling and Qualified Theft of Large Cattle – The crime of cattle-rustling is defined and punished under Presidential Decree No. the court is allowed to take judicial knowledge of the value of such property. method or scheme. Martinada. Judge de Guzman. simple cattle-rustling. The place where the theft or robbery was committed was inconsequential. February 13. the person who partook of the proceeds is liable for fencing. the court can impose the penalty which is found favorable to the accused. the crime is not cattle-rustling. 1612 is a distinct crime from theft and robbery. this may serve as notice. (309)
* The basis of the penalty is the value of the things stolen. amended Articles 309 and 310. But if prosecution is under the Revised Penal Code. People. so long as the taking is without the consent of the owner/breed thereof. or dealt with.Elements and Notes in Criminal Law Book II by RENE CALLANTA
Fencing under Presidential Decree No. He may be liable for fencing even if he paid the price because of the presumption. 473). it is qualified theft of large cattle. to that extent. 6 of Art. therefore be only. It merely modified the penalties provided for theft of large cattle under the Revised Penal Code and amended Article 309 and 310. When there is notice to person buying. Where the large cattle was not taken. It should only be an aggravating circumstance. (Cristobal vs. 84 Phil. * When there is no evidence as to the value of the property stolen. 1994. the crime should. Where the large cattle was received by the offender who thereafter misappropriated it. as an accessory. if explanation insufficient or unsatisfactory. But because the information did not allege the injury. however. the killing or destruction of large cattle. 309 (People vs. court will convict. The presumption does not offend the presumption of innocence in the fundamental law. but merely modified the penalties provided for theft of large cattle and. even without taking any part thereof. Note that the overt act that gives rise to the crime of cattle-rustling is the taking or killing of large cattle. 58 Phil. the crime is qualified theft under Article 310 if only physical or material possession thereof was yielded to him. the trial court should not have convicted the accused of frustrated murder separately from cattle-rustling. (People v. 3206) * When the resulting penalty for the accessory to the crime of theft has no medium period. Consequently. the crime would be estafa under Article 315 (1b). there may be fencing such as when the price is way below ordinary prices. 1991)
PENALTIES FOR QUALIFIED THEFT. (People vs. the person is prosecuted as an accessory. This was the ruling in Pamintuan v. Since the intent to gain is not essential. 1612 expressly provides that mere possession of anything of value which has been subject of theft or robbery shall be prima facie evidence of fencing. If both material and juridical possession thereof was yielded to him who misappropriated the large cattle. Since Section 5 of Presidential Decree No.

Qualified: if done by one who has access to place where stolen property is kept e. life and property to the accused with such degree of confidence and that the accused abused the same. the latter must be “grave” in order to comply with the requirement of the law because abuse of confidence is not enough.
* no confidence. * Abuse of confidence is determined from the trust reposed by the offended party to the offender. or 2. any misappropriation made by the possessor will not result in the commission of any crime. the crime committed is estafa. or 4. The roomboy is a hotel is embraced within the term “domestic servant. where the offender misappropriates a thing after he receives it from the victim. tellers * novation theory applies only if there’s a relation
Sigma Rho ( ΣΡ ) reviewers
193
. coconut from plantation e. large cattle d. * Abuse of confidence is also an element of estafa. the offended party may either be the employer where the offender is working as a household help. or 3. mail matter c. To avoid confusion between theft with abuse of confidence (qualified theft) and estafa with abuse of confidence. conversion of the property gives rise to the crime of theft.g.g. fish from fishpond or fishery.. not qualified theft THEFT – material possession’ ESTAFA – juridical possession * Where only the material possession is transferred. or on commission. On occasion of calamities and civil disturbance. Committed by domestic servant. Juridical possession of the thing is acquired when one holds the thing in trust. It may also refer to the nature of the work of the offender which must necessarily involve trust and confidence. If the possession of the offender is not under any of these concepts. motor vehicle b. the crime is qualified theft. or a third person as a guest in the house. misappropriation of the property would constitute estafa. Notes: * When the theft is committed by a domestic servant. the student must remember that in qualified theft. Property stolen is: a. only the physical or material possession of the thing is transferred. Where both the material and juridical possession is transferred. There must be an allegation in the information that there is a relation between the accused and the offended party wherein the latter confided his security as to his person. either for theft of estafa. When the material and juridical possession of the thing transfers ownership of the property to the possessor. or for administration or under any other obligation involving the duty to deliver or to return the thing received. With grave abuse of confidence.Elements and Notes in Criminal Law Book II by RENE CALLANTA
Article 310 QUALIFIED THEFT
THEFT IS QUALIFIED WHEN: 1. If the offender acquires the juridical as well as the physical possession of the thing and he misappropriates it.” “GRAVE ABUSE” – high degree of confidence e. guests
* In the case of abuse of confidence. guards.

within its protection. his absconding is QT * motor vehicle in kabit system sold to another-theft. with or without the required license. Taking possession of any real property belonging to another by means of violence against or intimidation of persons. or any vehicle which is motorized using the streets. (People v. 1992)
Sigma Rho ( ΣΡ ) reviewers
194
. Not postmaster – Art. personal property is involved. Usurping any real rights in property belonging to another by means of violence against or intimidation of persons. such as a motorized tricycle. otherwise.A.
* mail matter – private mail to be QT. the Theft becomes qualified.
ELEMENTS: 1. People. any vehicle which uses the streets. the act may constitute Coercion. who thereafter misappropriated the same. the crime is either qualified theft under Article 310 of the Revised Penal Code or estafa under Article 315 (b) of the Revised Penal Code. That there is intent to gain. the crime is estafa. there must be intent to gain. while in usurpation of real rights. The overt act which is being punished under this law as carnapping is also the taking of a motor vehicle under circumstances of theft or robbery. 107 SCRA 123)
* The taking with intent to gain of a motor vehicle belonging to another. 2. 4. the term motor vehicle includes. or by using force upon things is penalized as carnapping under Republic Act No.
* Use the degree of intimidation to determine the degree of the penalty to be applied for the usurpation. Qualified theft of a motor vehicle is the crime if only the material or physical possession was yielded to the offender. That violence against or intimidation of persons is used by the offender in occupying real property or usurpation real rights in property. Under R. without the latter’s consent. 6539 (An Act Preventing and Penalizing Carnapping).
* Since this is a crime against property. In the absence of the intent to gain. The main difference is that in robbery. 6539. (Izon vs. if juridical possession was also yielded. That the offender takes possession of any real property or usurps any real rights in property.Elements and Notes in Criminal Law Book II by RENE CALLANTA
* industrial partner is not liable for QT (estafa) * when accused considered the deed of sale as sham (modus) and he had intent to gain. Motor vehicle not used as PU in kabit system but under K of lease-estafa
On carnapping and theft of motor vehicle
When the subject is motor vehicle. July 23. 226 * theft of large cattle
Article 311 THEFT OF PROPERTY OF THE NATIONAL LIBRARY AND NATIONAL MUSEUM USURPATION Article 312 OCCUPATION OF REAL PROPERTY OR USURPATION OF REAL RIGHTS IN PROPERTY
Acts punished: 1. or by means of violence or intimidation of persons. That the real property or real rights belong to another. * Usurpation under Article 312 is committed in the same way as robbery with violence or intimidation of persons. Anti-Carnapping Act of 1972. 2. Judge Alfeche. If the motor vehicle was not taken by the offender but was delivered by the owner or the possessor to the offender. it is real property. 3. as amended.

The owner would. grave threats or grave coercion and an incremental penalty of fine based on the value of the gain obtained by the offender. 211 SCRA 770)
* Usurpation of real rights and property should not be complexed using Article 48 when violence or intimidation is committed. but it was the owner who was not in possession of the property who was named as the offended party.
Sigma Rho ( ΣΡ ) reviewers
195
. Hence. Cubelo. if physical injuries are inflicted on the victim due to the violence employed by the offender in the usurpation of real rights. stealth or methods other than the employment of violence. no crime was committed by the offender. be entitled to civil recourse only. (People vs. or any other marks intended to designate the boundaries of the same. 83 SCRA 670)
* The complainant must be the person upon whom violence was employed. That there be prejudice to his creditors. That the offender alters said boundary marks. Also the persons who were awarded lots but sold or lease them out.
* There is no crime of threat and usurpation of real property since threat is an indispensable element of usurpation of real rights. 3. at most. On squatting According to the Urban Development and Housing Ac t. That he absconds with his property. where threats are uttered to the owner of real property by one illegally occupying it. Those who have the capacity or means to pay rent or for legitimate housing but are squatting anyway. Alfeche. That the offender is a debtor. Jr.Elements and Notes in Criminal Law Book II by RENE CALLANTA
* The possession of the land or real rights must be done by means of violence or intimidation. but a two-tiered penalty is prescribed to be determined on whether the acts of violence used is akin to that in robbery in Article 294. That there be boundary marks or monuments of towns. he was obligations due and payable. 3. There is only a single crime. 2. provinces. the following are squatters: 1. or infanticide as the case may be. the crime committed is not the complex crime of usurpation of real property with grave threats because making a threat is an inherent element of usurpation of real property. When such eventuality does occur. * Violence employed results to the death of the offended party. Intruders of lands reserved for socialized housing. 2. or estates. So. 2. parricide. then the crime may rightfully be denominated as usurpation of real rights resulting to homicide. the same may be quashed as it does not charge an offense. that is. pre-empting possession by occupying the same.
Article 313 ALTERING BOUNDARIES OR LANDMARKS
ELEMENTS: 1.. If a tenant was occupying the property and he was threatened by the offender. if the evidence of the prosecution shows that the accused entered the premises by means of strategy. murder. the latter shall be punished separately for the crime of physical injuries.
* Note that violation of Article 312 is punishable only with fine . (Castrodes vs. So.
CULPABLE INSOLVENCY Article 314 FRAUDULENT INSOLVENCY (culpable insolvency)
ELEMENTS 1.

quantity. G. it can be divided into consummated. then the crime of estafa is not committed. 3. or (b) or means of deceit and 2. or inconvenience capable of pecuniary estimation. ELEMENTS OF ESTAFA WITH UNFAITHFULNESS: (315) 1. It may consist in mere disturbance of the property rights of the offended party. It is a well-known crime to lawyers and businessmen. * The word “onerous” means that the offended party has fully complied with his obligations to pay. But under the present article. The law says “any person. quantity or quality agreed upon. C. * The accused does not receive the goods but delivers a thing under an onerous obligation which is not in accordance with the substance. B.) by abuse of confidence. Being a public crime. (B). In the latter case. (People vs. What is required is actual prejudice to the creditor. Chong Chuy Lingobo. That damage or prejudice capable of pecuniary estimation is caused to the offended party or third person * The concept of damage under this article does not mean actual or real damage. ELEMENTS OF ESTAFA IN GENERAL: (315)
1. For the Insolvency Law to apply. if the thing delivered whose substance was altered. * The property which the offender may abscond which consists of both real and personal property. The intention of the accused alone is not enough. OF ART.1 PAR.
Article 315 A. the damage must be capable of pecuniary estimation. ELEMENTS OF ESTAFA WITH ABUSE OF CONFIDENCE UNDER SUBDIVISION
NO. That he alters its substance. Guzman.
SWINDLING AND OTHER DECEITS
ESTAFA is embezzlement under common law. the disposal of the merchandise must be done with malice. 45 Phil. It is a continuing crime unlike theft.” and this refers to anyone who becomes a debtor and performs the acts made punishable by the law. 40 O. there is no requirement that the accused should be adjudged bankrupt or insolvent.315
Sigma Rho ( ΣΡ ) reviewers
196
. It is the altering of the substance. However. That the accused defrauded another (a.Elements and Notes in Criminal Law Book II by RENE CALLANTA
* To be liable for fraudulent insolvency. * Since estafa is a material crime. 372) * The law on fraudulent insolvency is different from the Insolvency Law. is not yet fully or partially paid. the criminal act must have been committed after the institution of the insolvency proceedings against the offending debtor. 2. (People vs. A. or quality. So. 2655) * The law does not require the offender to be a merchant. That damage or prejudice is caused to another. quality or quantity of the thing delivered which makes the offender liable for the crime of estafa. the damage can be in the form of temporary prejudice or suffering. it can be prosecuted de officio. attempted or frustrated stages. That the offender has an onerous obligation to deliver something of value. This requirement is important because in estafa. The mere circumstance that a person has disposed of his merchandise by removing them from the place where they were kept would necessarily imply fraud. C. the penalty is dependent on the value of the property.

or on commission or for administration. or under any other obligation involving the duty to make delivery of or to return. In these instances. thing is received by offender under transactions transferring juridical possession. 2. That there is a demand made by the offended party to the offender. By denying that the thing was received. [Tubb v. 114] ). the proper forum would be the Securities and Exchange Commission. or dental on his part of such receipt. He must acquire both material or physical as well as juridical possession of the thing received. Notes: Unfaithfulness or Abuse of Confidence a. acquires a right over a thing which he may set up even against the owner. same thing received must be returned otherwise estafa. the same. the unpaid investor should institute against the middleman or dealer. and if there is allegation of fraud.. 240 SCRA 606). SUBDIVISION N0. 101 Phil.
(The fourth element is not necessary when there is evidence of misappropriation of the goods by the defendant. no agreement as to quality – No estafa if delivery is unsatisfactory By misappropriating and converting a. By misappropriating the thing received. goods. * A money market transaction however partakes of the nature of a loan. thing delivered has not been fully or partially paid for – not estafa c. and non-payment thereof would not give rise to criminal liability for Estafa through misappropriation or conversion.Elements and Notes in Criminal Law Book II by RENE CALLANTA
1. That money. 3. 2. or other personal property be received by the offender in trust. By converting the thing received.. In money market placements. ART. goods or personal property to have been received by the offender in trust.
* It is necessary in this kind of estafa. or on commission. That there be misappropriation or conversion of such money or property by the offender. for the money. that such misappropriation or conversion or dental is to the prejudice of another and 4. not ownership
b. People. who is the transferee. 3. 2ND ELEMENT OF ESTAFA WITH ABUSE OF CONFIDENCE UNDER PARAGRAPH
(B).1. Novation must take place before criminal liability was incurred or perhaps prior to the filing of the criminal information in court by state prosecutors
Sigma Rho ( ΣΡ ) reviewers
197
. existing obligation to deliver – even if it is not a subject of lawful commerce c. by altering the substance b. the offender. D. (Sesbreno vs. or for administration. before the ordinary courts. sale on credit by agency when it was to be sold for cash – estafa d. Court of Appeals. 315 = 3 WAYS OF COMMITTING:
1. et al. under PD 115 (Trust Receipts Law) – failure to turn over to the bank the proceeds of
the sale of the goods covered by TR – Estafa c. et al. a simple action for recovery of the amount he had invested. Estafa – not affected by Novation of Contract because it is a public offense e.

Partners – No estafa of money or property received for the partnership when the
business is commercial and profits accrued. Converting – act of using or disposing of another’s property as if it was one’s own. Failure to account after the DEMAND is circumstantial evidence of misappropriation
k.
There must be prejudice to another – not necessary that offender should obtain gain
* There is no estafa through negligence. ELEMENTS OF ESTAFA BY TAKING UNDUE ADVANTAGE OF THE SIGNATURE IN BLANK: (315) 1. or causes damage to. In theft. 4. * If the unauthorized writings were done by a person other than the one to whom the owner of the signature delivered the paper in blank. BUT if property is received for specific purpose and is misappropriated – estafa! j. denying having received money
E. and it caused damage to the offended party. Estafa
m. the accused makes entries in writing which creates liabilities against the owner of the signature. misappropriating
ESTAFA WITH ABUSE OF CONFIDENCE Offenders are entrusted with funds or property and are continuing offenses Funds: always private Offender: private individual. the crime committed by the third party is not estafa but falsification. domestic or employee who misappropriates a thing he received from his master is NOT guilty of estafa but of qualified theft • When in the prosecution for malversation the public officer is acquitted. That the document so written creates a liability of. the owner expects an immediate return of the thing to him – otherwise. taking. the private individual allegedly in conspiracy with him may be held liable for estafa MALVERSATION offenders are entrusted with funds or property and are continuing offenses Funds: public funds or property Offender: public officer accountable for public funds Committed by appropriating. That above the signature of the offended party a document is written by the offender without authority to do so. Servant. Note: If the paper with signature in blank was stolen – Falsification if by making it appear that he participated in a transaction when in fact he did not so participate
Sigma Rho ( ΣΡ ) reviewers
198
. That the paper with the signature of the offended party be in blank. thing has been devoted for a purpose or use different from that agreed upon
h. DEMAND is not a condition precedent to existence of estafa when misappropriation may be established by other proof l. converting. upon delivery of the thing to the offender. or public officer not accountable Committed by misappropriating. There is likewise no estafa where the accused did not personally profit or gain from the misappropriation. But contrary to such instructions and wishes. Misappropriating – to take something for one’s own benefit
g. * The element of this estafa is also abuse of confidence.Elements and Notes in Criminal Law Book II by RENE CALLANTA f. 3. with specific instructions to make entries thereon according to the wishes of the offended party.
i. The offended party leaves a blank paper with his signature to another. 2. That the offended party should have delivered it to offender. the offended party or any third person.

no. 163 SCRA 97) CREDIT means the ability to buy things or merchandise on the basis of one’s character. credit. Using fictitious name. or fraudulent means. ELEMENTS OF ESTAFA BY MEANS OF DECEIT: (315) 1. before or at least simultaneously with the delivery of the thing by the offended party. that there must be a false pretense. without prejudice to the action for calumny which the offended party may deem proper to bring against the offender. Court of Appeals. 4.Elements and Notes in Criminal Law Book II by RENE CALLANTA
F. qualifications. For the case to prosper against the accused. or weight of anything pertaining to his art or business.
Elements of estafa by means of false pretenses or fraudulent acts under Article 315 (2) Acts punished under paragraph (a) 1. That as a result thereof. it is indispensable that the element of deceit consisting in the false statement or fraudulent representation of the accused. et al. the offended party suffered damage. capacity to pay or goodwill in the business community. be made prior to. Notes: FALSE PRETENSES OR FRAUDULENT ACTS – executed prior to or simultaneously with delivery of the thing by the complainant * There must be evidence that the pretense of the accused that he possesses power/influence is false * The representation that accused possessed influence. influence.
Sigma Rho ( ΣΡ ) reviewers
199
. That such false pretense. agency. fraudulent act. 3. (Dela Cruz vs. Under paragraph (c) Pretending to have bribed any government employee. The added requirement that such false statement or fraudulent representation constitutes the very motive or the only reason or cause which induces the offended party to part with the thing while they may be false representation after the delivery of the goods or the thing by the aggrieved party. fineness. So. Falsely pretending to possess power. that is. fraudulent act or fraudulent means must be made or executed prior to or simultaneously with the commission of the fraud.
* In the prosecution of estafa under Article 315. business or imaginary transactions. such false statement or false representation.
Under paragraph (b) Altering the quality. 2 of Article 315. to deceive and inveigle the complainant into parting with his money must however be false to constitute deceit under No. he was induced to part with his money or property because of the false pretense. the crime committed is estafa. RPC. 2(a). 2. no matter how fraudulent and obnoxious it may appear. fraudulent act. the prosecution must prove two indispensable elements: deceit and damage to another. That the offended party must have relied on the false pretense. (Celino vs. or fraudulent means. or By means of other similar deceits. 265 SCRA 299). Court of Appeals. property. fraudulent means must be made or executed prior to or 2. 3. if it is used to deceive another and the deception is the principal reason for the delivery of the goods which results in damage to the offended party.. cannot serve as a basis for prosecution under this category of estafa.

1987) * Offender must be able to obtain something from the offended party by means of the check he issues and delivers
* The check must be issued in payment of an obligation .
* If check was issued in payment of pre-existing debt – no estafa * It is therefore essential that the check be issued in payment of a simultaneous obligation . Notes:
Note that this only applies if – (1) (2) The obligation is not pre-existing. For example. If the check is falsified and is cashed with the bank or exchanged for cash.prima facie evidence of deceit or failure to make good within three days after notice of. 21. 1092)
* If a bouncing check is issued to pay a pre-existing obligation. That such postdatig or issuing a check was done when the offender had no funds in the bank or his
funds deposited therein were not sufficient to cover the amount of the check. the crime of estafa is not committed. there is estafa. the crime is estafa thru falsification of a commercial document. So. or issued a check in payment of an obligation. O. VILLAPANDO. (People vs. Blg. * If postdating a check issued as mere guarantee/promissory note – no estafa
Sigma Rho ( ΣΡ ) reviewers
200
. * It must not be promissory notes. (Remember that it is the check that is supposed to be the sole consideration for the other party to have entered into the obligation.31) * dishonor for lack of funds . 22 which does not make any distinction as to whether a bad check is issued in payment of an obligation or to guarantee an obligation.) (3) It does not cover checks where the purpose of drawing the check is to guarantee a loan as this is not an obligation contemplated in this paragraph
* The check must be genuine. Canlas. That the offender postdated a check. Sept. Exception: when the check is issued not in payment of an obligation. then stopped payment and did not return the money. If the check was issued without any obligation or if there is lack of consideration and the check is subsequently dishonored. (Que vs.
2. (PP. if the check was issued in payment of a promissory note which had matured and the check was dishonored.Elements and Notes in Criminal Law Book II by RENE CALLANTA
G. The check in question must be utilized by the offender in order to defraud the offended party. and he had an intention to stop payment when he issued the check.
* good faith is a defense. 56 PHIL. there is not estafa since the accused did not obtain anything by means of said check. The check is drawn to enter into an obligation.
* If the checks were issued by the defendant and he received money for them. * The general rule is that the accused must be able to obtain something from the offended party by means of the check he issued and delivered. Rose wants to purchase a bracelet and draws a check without insufficient funds. P. the drawer is liable under B. G. People. * Deceit is presumed if the drawer fails to deposit the amount necessary to cover the check within three days from receipt of notice of dishonor or insufficiency of funds in the bank. VS. or guaranties. The jeweler sells her the bracelet solely because of the consideration in the check. 73217-18. ELEMENTS OF ESTAFA BY POSTDATING A CHECK OR ISSUING A CHECK IN PAYMENT OF AN OBLIGATION: (315) 1.

2. 2. while in the latter. That he fails to keep sufficient funds or to maintain a credit to cover the full amount of the check if presented within a period of 90 days from the date appearing thereon. it is the issuance of the check. 22: (1) Under both Article 315 (2) (d) and Batas Pambansa Blg. When the check was presented after 90 days from date. Makes arrangements for payment in full by the drawee of such check within five banking days after notice of non-payment
Sigma Rho ( ΣΡ ) reviewers
201
. ELEMENTS OF OFFENSE DEFINED IN THE FIRST PARAGRAPH OF SECTION 1:
BP 22
1. That the check is subsequently dishonored by the drawee bank for insufficiency of funds or credit. Hence. without any valid reason. The gravamen for the former is the deceit employed. knowledge by the drawer of insufficient funds is not required. That the check is made or drawn and issued to apply on account or for value. That a person has sufficient funds in or credit with the drawee bank when he makes or draws and issues a check. while in Batas Pambansa Blg. 22. In the estafa under Article 315 (2) (d). When the maker or drawer -a. That the person who makes or draws and issues the check knows at the time of issue that he does not have sufficient funds in or credit with the drawee bank for the payment of such check in full upon its presentment. Note: Failure to make good within 5 banking days prima facie evidence of knowledge of lack and insufficiency I.Elements and Notes in Criminal Law Book II by RENE CALLANTA
H. ELEMENTS OF THE OFFENSE DEFINED IN THE SECOND PARAGRAPH OF
SECTION 1: BP 22
1. knowledge by the drawer of insufficient funds is reqired. 22. there is criminal liability only under Batas Pambansa Blg. That a person makes or draws and issues any check. ordered the bank to stop payment. Pays the holder of the check the amount due within five banking days after receiving notice that such check has not been paid by the drawee. they are immaterial. deceit and damage are material. while in Batas Pambansa Blg. 22 is a crime against public interest. 22. Exceptions 1. (2) Estafa under Article 315 (2) (d) is a crime against property while Batas Pambansa Blg.
3. or would have been dishonored for the same reason had not the drawee. b. 2. 3. Note: Failure to make good within 5 banking days prima facie evididence of knowledge of lack and insufficiency
Distinction between estafa under Article 315 (2) (d) of the Revised Penal Code and violation of Batas Pambansa Blg. there is no double jeopardy. there is criminal liability if the check is drawn for non-pre-existing obligation.
(3) (4)
* When is there prima facie evidence of knowledge of insufficient funds? * There is a prima facie evidence of knowledge of insufficient funds when the check was presented within 90 days from the date appearing on the check and was dishonored. 22. 4. If the check is drawn for a pre-existing obligation. In estafa under Article 315 (2) (d). That the check is dishonored by the drawee bank.

The deceit must be prior to or simultaneous with damage done. But there is no prohibition against drawer from depositing memorandum check in a bank. As a matter of public policy. 195 SCRA 722).
* The law does not distinguish between foreign and local checks.” “mem”. As long as it is delivered within Philippine territory. there is no estafa. 22 applies. (De Villa vs. 22. For criminal liability to attach under Batas Pambansa Blg. 22 where the check bounces. whether the check is intended to serve merely as a guarantee or as a deposit. “memorandum” written across the face of the check which signifies that if the holder upon maturity of the check presents the same to the drawer.
* The unpaid or dishonored check with the stamped information re: refusal to pay is prima facie evidence of (1) the making or issuance of the check.
* Cross checks do not make them non-negotiable and therefore they are within the coverage of B. thus there is no more defense to the prosecution under Batas Pambansa Blg. 22.
* In De Villa v. 22 expressly provides that prosecution under said law is without prejudice to any liability for violation of any provision in the Revised Penal Code. Batas Pambansa Blg. On issuance of a bouncing check The issuance of check with insufficient funds may be held liable for estafa and Batas Pambansa Blg. 22. 22. Blg. provided that the drawer had been notified of the dishonor and inspite of such notice fails to pay the holder of the check the full amount due thereon within five days from notice. Court of Appeals. Double Jeopardy may not be invoked because a violation of Batas Pambansa Blg. This is true in the case of dollar or foreign currency checks. Blg. P. it was held that as long as instrument is a check under the negotiable instrument law. Blg.Elements and Notes in Criminal Law Book II by RENE CALLANTA
* The drawee must cause to be written or stamped in plain language the reason for the dishonor.. there is no estafa as damage had already been done.
* If the drawer has valid reasons for stopping payment. and (3) the fact that the check was properly dishonored for the reason stamped on the check. In estafa. Nitafan. 22. (2) the due presentment to the drawee for payment & the dishonor thereof. it is a check which have the word “memo. seller relied on check to part with goods. 22 is a malum prohibitum and is being punished as a crime against the public interest for undermining the banking system of the country. 1991. it was held that under Batas Pambansa Blg. the check must have been issued as a reciprocal consideration for parting of goods (kaliwaan). et al. After this period. If the check is issued for a pre-existing obligation. P. 22. the issuance of a worthless check is a public nuisance and must be abated. A memorandum check is not a promissory note. there is no distinction as to the kind of check issued. Even if the check is only presented to and dishonored in a Philippine bank. 22.
* Each act of drawing and issuing a bouncing check constitutes a violation of B. the Philippine courts have jurisdiction. it is covered by Batas Pambansa Blg. that is. 22 if the check bounces. it is enough that the check was issued to "apply on account or for value" and upon its presentment it was dishonored by the drawee bank for insufficiency of funds. If it is issued after parting with goods as in credit accommodation only. * In People v. 22. it is conclusive that drawer knew of the insufficiency. * The mere issuance of any kind of check regardless of the intent of the parties. decided April 18. while under the Revised Penal Code. he cannot be held criminally liable under B. the crime is malum in se which requires criminal intent and damage to the payee and is a crime against property. The drawer is liable under Batas Pambansa Blg. a drawer must be given notice of dishonor and given five banking days from notice within which to deposit or pay the amount stated in the check to negate the presumtion that drawer knew of the insufficiency. 22. it will be paid absolutely. none should be made. 22. There must be concomitance. * If the drawee bank received an order of stop-payment from the drawer with no reason. Under Batas Pambansa Blg. Batas Pambansa Blg. it must be stated that the funds are insufficient to be prosecuted here. * Whatever be the agreement of the parties in respect of the issuance of a check is inconsequential to a violation to Batas Pambansa Blg. Where the law makes no distinction. CA.
Sigma Rho ( ΣΡ ) reviewers
202
. makes the drawer liable under Batas Pambansa Blg.P.

* Where check was issued prior to August 8.
Sigma Rho ( ΣΡ ) reviewers
203
. 3. If presented for payment beyond the 90 day period and the drawer’s funds are insufficient to cover it.
Acts punished under paragraph (e) 1. a. there is no Batas Pambansa Blg. restaurant. inn. or apartment house. That prejudice be caused. the act shall be punished criminally as Estafa. lodging house. BY OBTAINING FOOD OR CREDIT AT HOTELS. accommodation.estafa
Under paragraph (b) Resorting to some fraudulent practice to insure success in a gambling game. * The check must be presented for payment within a 90-day period. Obtaining credit at any of the establishments. citing People v. That the offended party personally signed the document. c. documents or any other papers. refreshment. food. That the offender induced the offended party to sign a document. Abandoning or surreptitiously removing any part of his baggage in the establishment. a. Note: If offended party willingly signed the document and there was deceit as to the character or contents of the document – falsification. 22 violation. CONCEALING OR DESTROYING DOCUMENTS: (315) 1. b. Without paying therefor. no criminal liability should be incurred by the drawer. but where the accused made representation to mislead the complainants as to the character of the documents . K. 4 of the Ministry of Justice to the effect that checks issued as part of an arrangement/agreement of the parties to guarantee or secure fulfillment of an obligation are not covered by Batas Pambansa Blg. and the drawer relied on the then prevailing Circular No. boarding house. restaurant or inn usually gives rise to civil liability but if the intent to defraud is clear like a surreptitious removal of baggage from the hotel. 12 of the Department of the Justice took effect. when Circular No. Alberto. INNS. 3. or accommodation at a hotel. or resorting to deceitful means to evade payment. 2. office files. (Lazaro v. That there be court records. With intent to defraud the proprietor or manager. 2. ELEMENTS OF ESTAFA BY REMOVING. Obtaining food. a.
* Failure to pay food or accommodation in a hotel. it is because bank has been remiss in honoring agreement. CA. If check bounces. 22. November 11. c. That deceit be employed to make him sign the document. refreshment. ELEMENTS OF ESTAFA BY INDUCING ANOTHER TO SIGN ANY DOCUMENTS : (315) 1.Elements and Notes in Criminal Law Book II by RENE CALLANTA
* But overdraft or credit arrangement may be allowed by banks as to their preferred clients and Batas Pambansa Blg. October 28. Circular should not be given retroactive effect. b. Without paying. 1993. 1984. Using false pretense. 1993)
J. b.
L. 22 does not apply. After obtaining credit. 4. RESTAURANTS ETC.

or other evil motive. ELEMENTS OF SWINDLING (PAR. Disturbance in property right or 3.Elements and Notes in Criminal Law Book II by RENE CALLANTA
2. cooperatives. 3 (c) of Article 315. That the offender who is not the owner of said property represented that he is the owner thereof. pretending to verify a certain pleading in a case pending before a court. Temporary prejudice. the crime committed is malicious mischief under Article 327.
SYNDICATED ESTAFA. revenge. PRETENDING TO BE THE OWNER OF THE SAME: (316)
N. leasing. the removal. samahang nayon or former’s association. That the act be made to the prejudice of the owner or a third person. * In order to commit a crime. and removes or destroys a document which constitute evidence in the said case. such as a parcel of land or a building.: 1. SELLING. concealing or destroying results from hatred. 2) BY DISPOSING OF REAL PROPERTY AS
FREE FROM ENCUMBRANCE. borrows the folder of the case. 2. the offender must have the intention to defraud.
ELEMENTS OF SWINDLING (PAR. What is punished under this Article is the damage to public interest.1) BY CONVEYING. 4. said lawyer is guilty of Estafa under par. DAMAGE OR PREJUDICE CAPABLE OF PECUNIARY ESTIMATION : (315) (second element of any form of estafa) THE ELEMENTS OF DAMAGE OR PREJUDICE MAY CONSIST OF THE FF. concealed or destroyed any of them. as a result of the defraudation. ESTAFA Private individual was entrusted Intent to defraud INFIDELITY IN THE CUSTODY OF DOCUMENTS Public officer entrusted No intent to defraud
O. 3. That the thing be immovable. ALTHOUGH SUCH ENCUMBRANCE BE NOT RECORDED: (316) Sigma Rho ( ΣΡ ) reviewers
204
. ENCUMBERING.
A syndicate of five or more persons formed with intent to carry out an unlawful or illegal act. concealment or destruction of the court record should be done with the intent to defraud the victim. or funds contributed by corporations or associations for the general welfare. 3. concealment or destruction of documents under Article 226 wherein fraud is not an element of the crime. Note: No intent to defraud – destroying or removal = malicious mischief When a lawyer. * If the act of removing. This is distinguished from the crime of removal. OR MORTGAGING ANY REAL PROPERTY. transaction or scheme and defraudation which results in misappropriation of money contributed by stockholders or members of rural banks. 1. 2. and which is committed only by public officers. That the offender removed. encumbering or mortgaging the real property). The offender party being deprived of his money or property. In other words. M. RPC. That the offender should have executed an act of ownership (selling. That the offender had intent to defraud another.

Conversion is unauthorized assumption an exercise of the right of ownership over goods and chattels belonging to another.3) BY WRONGFULLY TAKING BY THE OWNER HIS PERSONAL FROM ITS LAWFUL POSSESSOR: (316) 1. or of devoting it to a purpose or use different from that agreed upon.Elements and Notes in Criminal Law Book II by RENE CALLANTA
1. That the offender takes advantage of the inexperience or emotions or feelings of a minor. That the offender is a surety in a bond given in a criminal or civil action. v. mortgages. That prejudice is thereby caused to the possessor or third person. That he sells.
P. That there must be express representation by the offender that the real property is free from encumbrance. That said personal property is in the lawful possession of another. 4. or (b) made before the cancellation of his bond. mortage or encumbrance is (a) without express authority from the court. 4.
R. or (c) to execute a transfer of any property right. 3. ELEMENTS OF SWINDLING (PAR. or (c) before being relieved from the obligation contracted by him. or. That the offender knew that the real property was encumbered. That the act of disposing of the real property be made to the damage of another. is a misappropriation and conversion to the prejudice of the owner. 6) BY SELLING. 192 SCRA 277.
Under paragraph 4 – by executing any fictitious contract to the prejudice of another Under paragraph 5 – by accepting any compensation for services not rendered or for labor not performed
Q. ELEMENTS OF SWINDLING (PAR. MORTGAGING OR
ENCUMBERING REAL PROPERTY OR PROPERTIES WITH WHICH THE OFFENDER GUARANTEED THE FULFILLMENT OF HIS OBLIGATION AS SURETY :
(316) 1. That he guaranteed the fulfillment of such obligation with his real property or properties. 3. in any other manner encumbers said real property. 4. 2. CA. That the transaction is to the detriment of such minor.
* In Saddul Jr.
Sigma Rho ( ΣΡ ) reviewers
205
. whether the encumbrance is recorded or not. that the thing disposed of be real property. 3. 2. That he induces such minor (a) to assume an obligation. That such sale. resulting in the alteration of their condition or exclusion of the owner’s rights. ELEMENTS OF SWINDLING A MINOR: (317) 1. 4. That the consideration is (a) some loan of money (b) credit or (c) other personal property. That the offender is the owner of personal property. 2. 3. it was held that the act of using or disposing of another’s property as if it were one’s own. or (b) to give release. 2. That the offender wrongfully takes it from its lawful possessor.

interpretation of dreams. That there is no consent of the mortgagee written on the back of the mortgage and noted on the record thereof in the office of the register of deeds. That the offender knows that such property is so mortaged. sells or pledges the same or any part thereof.Elements and Notes in Criminal Law Book II by RENE CALLANTA
* The property referred to in this article is not real property. 2. * The meaning of other deceits under this article has reference to a situation wherein fraud or damage is done to another by any other form of deception which is not covered by the preceding articles. 3.
CHATTEL MORTGAGE Article 319 A. but PD 1744 revived Art 320)
Sigma Rho ( ΣΡ ) reviewers
206
. That the offender. So. 4. SELLING OR PLEDGING PERSONAL PROPERTY ALREADY PLEDGED
ELEMENTS: 1. * If the chattel mortgage is not registered. or making forecasts. 5. not mentioned above. ELEMENTS OF OTHER DECEITS: (318) 1. * Another form of deceit would be in the nature of interpreting dreams. done for profit or gain. That he removes such mortgaged personal to any province or city other than the one in which it was located at the time of the execution of the mortgage. that the removal is permanent. future-telling for profit or gain. forecast. telling fortunes or simply by taking advantage of the credulity of the public by any other similar manner. who is the mortgagee of such property. S. the crime of swindling a minor under this article is not committed even if the offender succeeds in inducing the minor to deal with such real property since no damage or detriment is caused against the minor. 3. * It would be the mortgagor who is made liable if the personal property is transferred to the prohibited place. 2. The liability extends to third persons who shall knowingly remove the mortgaged to another city or province. 2. That personal property is already pledged under the terms of the chattel mortgage law. that personal property is mortgaged under the chattel mortage law. if what is involved is real property. administration or assigns to such removal. there is no violation of Article 319
ARSON AND OTHER CRIMES INVOLVING DESTRUCTIONS
(Note: PD 1613 expressly repealed or amended Arts 320-326. That there is no written consent of the mortgagee or his executors.
KNOWINGLY REMOVING MORTGAGED PERSONAL PROPERTY ELEMENTS:
1. It is limited to personal property since a minor cannot convey real property without judicial intervention.

Death is absorbed in the crime of arson but the penalty to be imposed ranges from reclusion perpetua to death. ELEMENTS OF ARSONS OF PROPERTY OF SMALL VALUES
1. That the destruction was done by means of: a. like gasoline. inundation d. No. ELEMENTS OF ARSON
1. explosion b. Arson is established by proving the corpus delicti. storehouse. The crime committed is still arson.
Sigma Rho ( ΣΡ ) reviewers
207
. (Sec. taking up rails from the railway track
g. That the burning was done at a time or under circumstances which clearly exclude all danger of the fire spreading
B. damaging the engine of the vessel f. or (c) the thing burned is a building in an inhabited place Palattao notes: Arson is defined as the intentional or malicious destruction of a property by fire. meaning the substance used. discharge of electric current c. That the purpose of the offender in doing so was to commit arson or to cause a great destruction 3. That the value of the property burned does not exceed 25 pesos 3. destroying telegraph wires and posts or those of any other system h. sinking or stranding of a vessel e. That the offender set fire to or destroyed his own property 2. That an uninhabited hut. ELEMENTS OF BURNING ONE’S PROPERTY AS A MEANS TO COMMIT ARSON
1. shed or any other property is burned 2. 1613) How arson is established. That the offender causes destruction of the property 2. That (a) the purpose of the offender is burning it is to defraud or cause damage to another or (b) prejudice is actually caused. P. It can also be in the form of electrical wires. kerosene or other form of bustible materials which caused the fire. Legal effect if death results from arson. ELEMENTS OF CRIME INVOLVING DESTRUCTION
1. That the property burned is the exclusive property of the offender 2.Elements and Notes in Criminal Law Book II by RENE CALLANTA A. That the property belonging to another was burned or destroyed
D.D. 5. barn. usually in the form of circumstancial evidence such as the criminal agency. other similar effective means of destruction
C.

47 O.
* Damage is not incident of a crime (breaking windows in robbery)
Article 328 SPECIAL CASES OF MALICIOUS MISCHIEF Sigma Rho ( ΣΡ ) reviewers
208
. D. Notes:
* If the crime of arson was employed by the offender as a means to kill the offended party . the penalty shall be based on Article 365 of the Revised Penal Code as a felony committed by means of culpa. Villarosa. (People vs. G. 54 O. the crime committed is still arson because the death of the victim is a mere consequence and not the intention of the offender. chemical or electronic contrivance designed to start a fire. 3. 3482) * When the burning of the property was done by the offender only to cause damage but the arson resulted to death of a person. When the arson results from reckless imprudence and it leads to death. The burning of the property as the means to kill the victim is what is contemplated by the word “fire” under Article 248 which qualifies the crime to murder. 4600)
* There is no special complex crime of arson with homicide.Elements and Notes in Criminal Law Book II by RENE CALLANTA
mechanical. 2. G. the penalty to be imposed shall not be for the crime of arson under P. That the offender deliberately caused damage to the property of another. revenge or other evil motive * No negligence Example. (People vs. 1613 but rather. he used it = theft
* There is destruction of the property of another but there is no misappropriation. Notes: MALICIOUS MISCHIEF – willful damaging of another’s property for the sake of causing damage due to hate. No. it would be theft if he gathers the effects of destruction. Killing the cow as revenge * If no malice – only civil liability Meaning of “damage” in malicious mischief. That the act damaging another’s property be committed merely for the sake of damaging it. Otherwise. That such act does not constitute arson or other crimes involving destruction. What matters in resolving cases involving intentional arson is the criminal intent of the offender. ashes or traces of such objects which are found in the ruins of the burned premises. * There is such a crime as reckless imprudence resulting in the commission of arson. deforming or rendering it useless for the purpose for which it was made. * But after damaging the thing. > It means not only loss but a diminution of the value of one’s property. Paterno. the crime committed is murder.
MALICIOUS MISCHIEF Article 326 MALICIOUS MISCHIEF
ELEMENTS: 1. It includes defacing. serious physical injuries and damage to the property of another.

or because of the kind of substance used to cause the damage. none – art 48 * If the damage was intended to cause derailment only without any intention to kill. Spreading infection or contagious among cattle. 3. If the derailment is intentionally done to cause the death of a person. Note: Qualified malicious mischief – no uprising or sedition (#1)
Article 329 OTHER MISCHIEF
ELEMENTS: 1. * The cases of malicious mischief enumerated in this article are so-called qualified malicious mischief. revenge or other evil motive. Using poisonous or corrosive substances. registry. Not included in 328 a. waterworks. The crime becomes qualified either because of the nature of the damage caused to obstruct a public. 4. or any other thing used in common by the public. signal system of railways Notes: * removing rails from tracks is destruction (art 324) * not applicable when telegraph/phone lines don’t pertain to railways (example: for transmission of electric power/light) people killed as a result: a. telephone lines. PUBLIC MONUMENTS OR PAINTINGS Article 332 Sigma Rho ( ΣΡ ) reviewers
209
. scattering human excrement b. * circumstance qualifying the offense if the damage shall result in any derailment of cars.Elements and Notes in Criminal Law Book II by RENE CALLANTA
1. road. it will be a crime involving destruction under Article 324. telegraph. Obstruct performance of public functions. traction cables. murder – if derailment is means of intent to kill b. If the damages cannot be estimated. Damage to property of national museum or library. collision or other accident – a higher penalty shall be imposed
Article 331 DESTROYING OR DAMAGING STATUES. the minimum penalty is arresto menor or a fine of not more than 200 pesos shall be imposed on the offender. killing of cow as an act of revenge * The offender is punished according to the value of the damage caused to the offended party. electric wires. the crime committed will be murder under Article 248. promenade. The crime is still malicious mischief because the offender has no intent to gain but derives satisfaction from the act because of hate. archive.
Article 330 DAMAGE AND OBSTRUCTION TO MEANS OF COMMUNICATION
done by damaging railways. 2.

stepfather/mother (ascendants by affinity) b.
Swindling Malicious mischief
TITLE ELEVEN CRIMES AGAINST CHASTITY
Crimes against chastity 1.Elements and Notes in Criminal Law Book II by RENE CALLANTA EXEMPTION FROM CRIMINAL LIABILITY IN CRIMES AGAINST PROPERTY
Persons exempt from criminal liability 1. 337). common law spouse (property is part of their earnings)
* Only the relatives enumerated incur no liability if the crime relates to theft (not robbery). 338). Corruption of minors (Art. Theft ( not robbery ) 2. 5. 6. if living together
Offenses involved in the exemption 1. estafa or malicious mischief.
Sigma Rho ( ΣΡ ) reviewers
210
. Adultery (Art. 341). 334). Brothers and sisters and brothers-in-law and sisters-in-law. 342). White slave trade (Art. 8. and malicious mischief. 339). swindling. the provision applies to live-in partners. 336). Qualified seduction (Art. 7. Spouse. 3. ascendants and descendants or relatives by affinity in the same line
2. adopted children (descendants) c. 333). * Parties to the crime not related to the offended party still remains criminally liable Persons exempt include: a. Concubinage (Art. 340). 9. they must be living together at the time of the commission of the crime of theft. 3. * Estafa should not be complexed with any other crime in order for exemption to operate. Notes: * Exemption is based on family relations * For the exemption to apply insofar as brothers and sisters. concubine/paramour (spouse) d. Simple seduction (Art. The relationship between the spouses is not limited to legally married couples. Forcible abduction (Art. Acts of lasciviousness with the consent of the offended party (Art. 4. Acts of lasciviousness (Art. and brothers-in-law and sisters-inlaw are concerned. 2. Third parties who participate are not exempt. The widowed spouse with respect to the property w/c belonged to the deceased spouse before the same passed into the possession of another 3.

The law regards the privacy of the offended party here as more important than the disturbance to the order of society. In order to constitute adultery. Notes: * There are two reasons why adultery is made punishable by law .
* Adultery is a crime not only of the married woman but also of the man who had intercourse with a married woman knowing her to be married. She agreed to go with to Baguio City. That she has sexual intercourse with a man not her husband. the crime has already become public and it is beyond the offended party to pardon the offender. 343). the other innocent. although they were tried together.Elements and Notes in Criminal Law Book II by RENE CALLANTA
10. there may be no such intent in the mind of the other party. But the moment the offended party has initiated the criminal complaint. they stayed in a motel. Y. then he could simply file the case against the woman. * If after preliminary investigation. Joint criminal intent is not necessary. That is why under Article 344. Primarily. and another adultery in Dagupan City. if the offended party pardons the offender. * The acquittal of the woman does not necessarily result in the acquittal of her co-accused. One may be guilty of the criminal intent. * A husband committing concubinage may be required to support his wife committing adultery under the rule in pari delicto. So.
Sigma Rho ( ΣΡ ) reviewers
211
. it paves the way to the introduction of a spurious child into the family. that pardon will only be valid if it comes before the prosecution starts. at Roxas Boulevard. For the law gives the offended party the preference whether to sue or not to sue. This is so because whether he knows the woman to be married or not is a matter of defense and its up to him to ventilate that in formal investigations or a formal trial. * There are two counts of adultery committed in this instance: one adultery in Bulacan. if the man had no knowledge that the woman was married. at the beginning. Even if it involves the same man. where they went to a motel and had sexual intercourse. 3. When they were in Bulacan. it is a violation of the marital vow and secondarily. the public prosecutor will take over and continue with prosecution of the offender. * Adultery is an instantaneous crime which is consummated and completed at the moment of the carnal union. there must be a marriage although it be subsequently annulled. supposedly to come back the next day. having sexual intercourse there. he must know her to be married. That as regards the man with whom she has sexual intercourses. Consented abduction (Art. * For adultery to exist. abduction and acts of lasciviousness are the so-called private crimes. he must still be included in the complaint or information. Illustration: Madamme X is a married woman residing in Pasay City. the public prosecutor is convinced that the man did not know that the woman is married. Each sexual intercourse constitutes a crime of adultery. There is no adultery. each intercourse is a separate crime of adultery. After that. there must be a joint physical act.
* The crimes of adultery. Although the criminal intent may exist in the mind of one of the parties to the physical act. and yet the joint physical act necessary to constitute the adultery may be complete. the former would have to be acquitted and the latter found guilty. Adultery is not a continuing crime unlike concubinage. seduction. if the marriage is void from the beginning. They cannot be prosecuted except upon the complaint initiated by the offended party. he would be innocent insofar as the crime of adultery is concerned but the woman would still be guilty. concubinage. He met a man. they proceeded again and stopped at Dagupan City. The moment the prosecution starts. That the woman is married (even if marriage subsequently declared void) 2. Even if the man proves later on that he does not know the woman to be married.
Article 333 ADULTERY
ELEMENTS: 1.

(58 Phil. vs. et al. 621). One who invokes abandonment in the crime of adultery hypothetically admits criminal liability for the crime charged. (People vs.. vs.Elements and Notes in Criminal Law Book II by RENE CALLANTA
* Mitigated if wife was abandoned without justification by the offended spouse (man is entitled to this mitigating circumstance)
* Abandonment without justification is not exempting but only a mitigating circumstance. et al. * After filing the complaint for adultery and while the case is pending trial and resolution by the trial court. Keeping a mistress in the conjugal dwelling. 230)
* While abandonment is peculiar only to the accused who is related to the offended party and must be considered only as to her or him as provided under Article 62. The legal tenet has been and still is “circumstancial and corroborative evidence as will lead the guarded discretion of a reasonable and just man to the conclusion that the criminal act of adultery has been committed will bring about conviction for the crime. Having sexual intercourse under scandalous circumstances with a woman who is not his wife. Such agreement bars the husband from instituting a criminal complaint for adultery. there is only one act committed and consequently both accused are entitled to this mitigating circumstance. et al. the wife Rosario Tagayum lived with her co-accused Pontio Guinucud in a nearby barangay.A. Serrano. b. Muguerza. 13 C.G. 2. 28 Phil. judicially speaking. the Court ruled that while a private agreement between the husband and wife was null and void. Avelino. Thereafter. 40 O. the offended spouse must not have sexual intercourse with the adulterous wife since an act of intercourse subsequent to the adulterous conduct is considered as implied pardon . Pontio Guinucud. That he committed any of the following acts: a.” (U. 36 Phil. S.
Sigma Rho ( ΣΡ ) reviewers
212
. the same was admissible proof of the express consent given by the condescending husband to the prodigal wife. (U. a license for her to commit adultery. nonetheless. S. Their love affair ultimately embroiled the spouses’ conservative and reputable families in a human drama exposed in legal battles and whispers of unwanted gossips. That the man must be married. Rep.
* In the case of People vs. in the crime of adultery. Feliciano. 1079) * It is seldom the case that adultery is established by direct evidence.. Supp. a private agreement was entered into between the husband and wife for them to separate from bed and board and for each of them to go for his and her own separate way. 11.. 753)
Article 334 CONCUBINAGE
ELEMENTS: 1. paragraph 3. 194) Attempted: caught disrobing a lover
* There is no frustrated adultery because of the nature of the offense. In dismissing the complaint. (People vs.

keeping of a mistress in a townhouse procured and furnished by a married man who does not live or sleep with her in said townhouse does not constitute concubinage since there is no cohabitation.G.
Article 335. there is no need for proof of sexual intercourse. Similarly. The reason given for this is that when the wife commits adultery. Rape
This has been repealed by Republic Act No. concubinage is a continuing crime. CA 57 O. the husband. * Unlike adultery. Campos-Rueda. If the husband commits concubinage. the latter must be imprudent and wanton as to offend modesty and sense of morality and decency. * It has been asked why the penalty for adultery is higher than concubinage when both crimes are infidelities to the marital vows. 8353 or the Anti-Rape Law of 1997. vs. Note: “Scandal” consists in any reprehensible word/deed that offends public conscience. Thus. Likewise. there is a probability that she will bring a stranger into the family. the same will not be sufficient to convict the accused of concubinage since the law clearly states that the act must be one of those provided by law. (People vs.G. * When spies are employed to chronicle the activities of the accused and the evidence presented to prove scandalous circumstances are those taken by the detectives. 35 Phil. Not in the case of a married woman who may bring a child to the family under the guise of a legitimate child. it includes the woman who had a relationship with the married man. et al. if a married man’s conduct with a woman who is not his wife was not confined to occasional or transient interview for carnal intercourse but is carried n in the manner of husband and wife and for some period of time. See Article 266-A.S. This is a crime committed by the married man.A. 51)
* Causal sexual intercourse with a woman in a hotel is not concubinage. (C. redounds to the detriment of the feelings of honest persons and gives occasions to the neighbor’s spiritual damage and ruin
* With respect to concubinage the same principle applies: only the offended spouse can bring the prosecution. * For the existence of the crime of concubinage by having sexual intercourse under scandalous circumstances.
* The rule is that. That as regards the woman she must know him to be married.
* If the charges consist in keeping a mistress in the conjugal dwelling. then such association is sufficient to constitute cohabitation. it is obvious that the sexual intercourse done by the offenders was not under scandalous circumstances. 904). Cohabiting with her in any other place. this probability does not arise because the mother of the child will always carry the child with her.) 52 O. * It is only when a married man has sexual intercourse with a woman elsewhere that “scandalous circumstances” becomes an element of crime. if the co-accused was voluntarily taken and sheltered by the spouses in their house and treated as an adopted child being a relative of the complaining wife. Hilao. This is the reason why in the former crime the penalty is higher than the latter. it is clearly known that the child is a stranger. (People vs. 3.Elements and Notes in Criminal Law Book II by RENE CALLANTA
c. So even if the husband brings with him the child. 2497) * If the evidence of the prosecution consists of a marriage contract between the offender and the offended party.. and the additional fact of the birth certificate of a child showing the accused to be the father of the child with the alleged cocubine.
Sigma Rho ( ΣΡ ) reviewers
213
. Zuniga. The conjugal dwelling is the house of the spouse even if the wife happens to be temporarily absent therefrom. The woman however must be brought into the conjugal house by the accused husband as a concubine to fall under this article. her illicit relations with the accused husband does not make her a mistress. (U.

* Intent to rape is not a necessary element of the crime of acts of lasciviousness . or there was a deceitful promise of marriage which never would really be fulfilled. when the act performed with lewd design was perpetrated under circumstances which would have brought about the crime of rape if sexual intercourse was effected. the offender took advantage of his position of ascendancy over the offender woman either because he is a person in authority.
Article 339. 3. indicating a clear intention to lie with the offended party. or otherwise unconscious.
* Always remember that there can be no frustration of acts of lasciviousness. That it is done under any of the following circumstances: a. Thus. the intention of the wrongdoer is not very material. there would be no crime of attempted rape. the offended party may be a man or a woman.
* What constitutes lewd or lascivious conduct must be determined from the circumstances of each case. the crime committed as Attempted Rape. or b. This means that the offended party is either – (1) (2) under 12 years of age. that is. when the offended party is deprived of reason or otherwise unconscious. a domestic. a househelp. Article 336.
* To be guilty of this crime however.
2.
Note that there are two kinds of acts of lasciviousness under the Revised Penal Code: (1) under Article 336. the acts of lasciviousness must be committed under any of the circumstances that had there been sexual intercourse.Elements and Notes in Criminal Law Book II by RENE CALLANTA Article 336 ACTS OF LASCIVIOUSNESS
ELEMENTS: 1. 336) can be committed by either sex unlike in Acts of Lasciviousness with Consent under Article 339. Otherwise. if his participation amounts to performing all the acts of execution. 1. or while the offender party was deprived of reason. * This crime (Art. Where circumstances however are such. or c. Acts of Lasciviousness with the Consent of the Offended Party: Under this article. the victim is limited only to a woman. rape or adultery because no matter how far the offender may have gone towards the realization of his purpose. a priest. a lesbian who toyed with the private part of an eleven-year-old girl who enjoyed it since she was given $50 dollars before the act. or being over 12 years of age. The crime committed. The circumstances under which the lascivious acts were committed must be that of qualified seduction or simple seduction. The motive that impelled the accused to commit the offense is of no importance because the essence of lewdness is in the act itself. by using force or intimidation. and (2) under Article 339. That the offender commits any act of lasciviousness or lewdness. is guilty of Act of Lasciviousness under this Article as the
Sigma Rho ( ΣΡ ) reviewers
214
. the crime would have been Rape. Acts of Lasciviousness Under this article.
* In the crime of acts of lasciviousness. the felony is necessarily produced as a consequence thereof. the lascivious acts were committed on him or her through violence or intimidation. when the offended party is under 12 years of age. The demarcation line is not always easy to determine but in order to sustain a conviction for acts of lasciviousness. That the offended party is another person of either sex. is acts of lasciviousness under this article. 2. a teacher or a guardian. it is essential that the acts complained of be prompted by lust or lewd designs and the victim did not consent to nor encouraged the act.

priest. 34 Phil. there can be no crime of Seduction as she is not a virgin. brother who seduced his sister b. Those who abuse their authority: a. confidence or relationship on the part of the offender ( person entrusted with education or custody of victim. priest. offended party has not had any experience before. that the woman is a virgin in qualified seduction. persons in public authority b. * The distinction between qualified seduction and simple seduction lies in the fact. in any capacity. if the offended party is a descendant or a sister of the offender – no matter how old she is or whether she is a prostitute – the crime of qualified seduction is committed. the act would have been Rape.
4. It means that the
* The virginity referred to here. (presumed if she unmarried and of good reputation. ascendant who seduced his descendant
2. The offended woman must be over 12 but below 18 years.S. the latter is still to be considered a virgin (U. * For purposes of qualified seduction. is entrusted with the education or custody of the woman seduced Those who abused the confidence reposed in them: a. when the accused claims he had prior intercourse with the complainant. 808). servant) Persons liable: 1. among others.That the offender has sexual intercourse with her. domestic Those who abused their relationship: a.
That there is abuse of authority. Casten. vs. is not to be understood in so material a sense as to exclude the idea of abduction of a virtuous woman of a good reputation.
* Although in qualified seduction. such as a person in authority. Seduction of a sister by her brother or descendant by her ascendant. while in simple seduction.
* This crime also involves sexual intercourse. guardian c. house servant c. teachers etc and 2. priest b. person who. it is not necessary that the woman be a virgin.
SEDUCTION Article 337 QUALIFIED SEDUCTION OF A VIRGIN
Two classes of qualified seduction: 1. virginity does not mean physical virginity. 3. person in public authority. teacher d. It is enough that she is of good repute.
3. and had sexual intercourse been possible and done.Elements and Notes in Criminal Law Book II by RENE CALLANTA
victim is below twelve year old. regardless of her age or reputation (incestuous seduction) Elements:
1. But if it was established that the girl had a carnal relations with other men.)
2. Thus.That she must be over 12 and under 18 years of age.
That the offended party is a virgin. Illustration:
Sigma Rho ( ΣΡ ) reviewers
215
. the age of the offended woman is considered. Seduction of a virgin over 12 and under 18 years of age by certain persons.

* Deceit is not necessary in qualified seduction. It is enough that she is enrolled in the same school. That the offended party is over 12 and under 18 years of age. That it is committed by means of deceit. 2. * In the case of a teacher.
Sigma Rho ( ΣΡ ) reviewers
216
. * The term domestic refers to a person usually living under the same roof with the offended party. Lack of consent on the part of the complainant is not an element of the crime. But one who is charged with rape cannot be convicted of qualified seduction under the same information. A domestic is not necessarily a house servant. Abuse of confidence here implies fraud. in the eyes of the law. 69 SCRA 144) * Even if the woman has already lost her virginity because of rape. single or widow. It does not refer to the condition of the hymen as being intact. That the offender has sexual intercourse with her. * Where the offended party is below 12 years of age. * A domestic should not be confused with a house servant.
Article 338 SIMPLE SEDUCTION
ELEMENTS: 1.
* The fact that the offended party gave her consent to the sexual intercourse is not a defense. regardless of whether the victim is a sister or a descendant of the offender. regardless of her reputation or age. 3. taking into account the abuse of confidence on the part of the agent. * An essential element of a qualified seduction is virginity (doncella). the crime committed will be adultery. It includes all those persons residing with the family and who are members of the same household. it is not necessary that the offended woman be his student. she remains a virtuous woman even if physically she is no longer a virgin. Ramirez. Qualified seduction is committed even though no deceit intervened or even when such carnal knowledge was voluntary on the part of the virgin. That she must be of good reputation. * One who is charged with qualified seduction can be convicted of rape. (People vs. the law takes for granted the existence of the deceit as an integral element of the crime and punishes it with greater severity than it does the simple seduction. regardless of the fact that their residence may only be temporary or that they may be paying for their board and lodging. 4. It is a condition existing in a woman who has had no sexual intercourse with any man. had sexual intercourse with her.Elements and Notes in Criminal Law Book II by RENE CALLANTA
If a person goes to a sauna parlor and finds there a descendant and despite that. This is because in such a case. the crime committed is rape. the crime of qualified seduction is committed. * If the offended party is married and over 12 years of age.

he is guilty of Acts of Lasciviousness under this article. or there was abuse of confidence. 8353. abuse of confidence. there is no seduction that the woman is of loose morals. but had there been sexual intercourse. there was deceit employed. the crime would either be qualified seduction or simple seduction if the offender succeeds in having sexual intercourse with the victim. Reyes)
Promise of marriage must precede sexual intercourse. (U.A. 2. or with the consent of the offended party. or a sister or descendant regardless of her reputation or age. virginity is not essential in this crime . > A promise of marriage made by the accused after sexual intercourse had taken place.
* The crime of acts of lasciviousness under Article 339 is one that is done with the consent of the offended party who is always a woman. The woman must yield on account of the promise of marriage or other forms of inducement. there must be no sexual intercourse. or the employment of deceit. Here. confidence. What is required is that the woman be unmarried and of good reputation.
* In the commission of the acts of lasciviousness either by force or intimidation. Hernandez.
* The offended woman must be under 18 but not less than 12 years old. * If a woman under 18 years of age but over 12 agrees to a sexual intercourse with a man who promised her precious jewelries but the man reneges on his promise. If the woman is married. that the offender commits acts of lasciviousness or lewdness. That the acts are committed upon a woman who is virgin or single or widow of good reputation. Sec. abuse of authority or because of the existence of blood relationship. the offense would have been Seduction. * A promise of material things in exchange for the woman’s surrender of her virtue does not constitute deceit. Simple seduction is not synonymous with loss of virginity. (Luis B. that the offender accomplishes the acts by abuse of authority. In the first situation. 29 Phil. the crime is statutory rape. he is guilty of Simple Seduction.
Article 339 ACTS OF LASCIVIOUSNESS WITH THE CONSENT OF THE OFFENDED PARTY
ELEMENTS: 1. This act may now be considered Rape under R. relationship. 109)
* Where the accused failed to have sex with this sweetheart over twelve (12) but below eighteen (18) years old because the latter refused as they were not yet married. and the accused procured the performance of a fictitious marriage ceremony because of which the girlfriend yielded. (People vs. or deceit.
* Where the acts of the offender were limited to acts of lewdness or lasciviousness.
* When the acts of lasciviousness is committed with the use of force or intimidation or when the offended party is under 12 years of age. and no carnal knowledge was had. Hernandez. 3. there is consent but the same is procured by the offender through the employment of deceit. under 18 years of age but over 12 years. the crime will be adultery.Elements and Notes in Criminal Law Book II by RENE CALLANTA
* Deceit generally takes the form of unfulfilled promise to marry. 29 Phil. or the acts performed are short of sexual intercourse.
Sigma Rho ( ΣΡ ) reviewers
217
. vs. or after the woman had yielded her body to the man by mutual consent will not render the man liable for simple seduction. or the offender is related to the victim. The lewd acts committed against her is with her consent only because the offender took advantage of his authority. In these two cases. 2 par. 109). The promise of marriage must serve as the inducement. 6. the object of the crime can either be a woman or a man. otherwise.S. * Unlike in qualified seduction.

Enlisting the service of women for the purpose of prostitution * The person liable under Article 341 is the one who maintains or engages in the trade of prostitution. * It is not necessary that the minor be prostituted or corrupted as the law merely punishes the act of promoting or facilitating the prostitution or corruption of said minor and that he acted in order to satisfy the lust of another. Note: Sexual intercourse is NOT necessary
Sigma Rho ( ΣΡ ) reviewers
218
. 2. or reputation.G. A white slaver on the other hand is one engaged in white slave traffic. So. That the abduction is with lewd designs. Engaging in the business of prostitution 2. Go Lo. the maintainer of owner of the bar or saloon is liable for white slave trade. 4056)
ABDUCTION Article 342 FORCIBLE ABDUCTION
ELEMENTS: 1. Profiting by prostitution 3. It is not the unchaste act of the minor which is being punished. For each intercourse. procurer of white slaves or prostitutes. (People vs. civil status. * What the law punishes is the act of pimp (bugaw) who facilitates the corruption of a minor. regardless of her age.
* A single act of promoting or facilitating the corruption or prostitution of a minor is sufficient to constitute violation of this article. That the person abducted is any woman. 3.
Article 341 WHITE SLAVE TRADE
Acts penalized: 1. * The most common way of committing this crime would be through the maintenance of a bar or saloon where women engage in prostitution. A white slave is a woman held unwillingly for purposes of commercial prostitution. * Young minor should enjoy a good reputation. a prostitute above 12 and under 18 years of age cannot be the victim in the crime of corruption of minors. Apparently.Elements and Notes in Criminal Law Book II by RENE CALLANTA
Article 340 CORRUPTION OF MINORS
Act punishable: By promoting or facilitating the prostitution or corruption of persons underage to satisfy the lust of another
* It is not required that the offender be the guardian or custodian of the minor. the women pay the maintainer or owner of a certain amount in this case. a mere proposal to promote or facilitate the prostitution or corruption of a minor is sufficient to consummate the crime. That the abduction is against her will. 56 O.

210 SCRA 206). solely for the purpose of killing him and not detaining him for any legal length of time. from her house or the place where she may be. et al.
* Unlike in Rape and Seduction. otherwise. 37 SCRA 450)
* If the accused carried or took away the victim by means of force and with lewd design and thereafter raped her.. it would amount to kidnapping. the crime is Kidnapping with Serious Illegal Detention under this Article 267. RPC. then the crime committed is only rape.
* If the offended woman is under 12 years old. qualified seduction of sister/descendant.
* Lewd design does not include sexual intercourse. (People vs. if the victim is subjected to this. and the forcible abduction was resorted to by the accused in order to facilitate the commission of the rape. the accused should be charged with forcible abduction with rape. where the man cannot possibly give the woman the benefit of an honorable life. The subsequent two (2) other sexual intercourse committed against the will of the complainant would be treated as independent separate crimes of Rape. The acts are limited to taking away from a place the victim. with unchaste design manifested by kissing and touching the victim’s private parts. The evil purpose of the offender may be established or inferred from the overt acts of the accused. the ruling is that forcible abduction is committed by the mere carrying of the woman as long as that intent is already shown. whether Forcible or Consented. the crime may be illegal detention. 777)
* Where the victim was taken from one place to another. It is necessary to establish the unchaste design or purpose of the offender. the offender commits another crime separate and distinct from forcible abduction. therefore. 62 SCRA 174)
Sigma Rho ( ΣΡ ) reviewers
219
. * The element of lewd designs.
* A woman is carried against her will or brought from one place to another against her will with lewd design. even though she had gone with the offender through some deceitful promises revealed upon her to go with him and they live together as husband and wife without the benefit of marriage. but the same must be with lewd designs. (People vs. Jose. that is. which is essential to the crime of abduction through violence refers to the intention to abuse the abducted woman. Bacalso. 83 Phil. In this case. Ong. So. If the woman was only brought to a certain place in order to break her will and make her agree to marry the offender. In other words. This is also true if the woman is deprived of reason and if the woman is mentally retardate. and the victim was deprived of her liberty. for the purpose of carrying her to another place with intent to marry or corrupt her.
* Where lewd design was not proved or shown. the carrying of the woman is characterized with lewd design and would bring about the crime of abduction and not kidnapping. in the crime of Abduction. there is no sexual intercourse. * Where the offended woman is below the age of consent. Forcible abduction is committed and not consented abduction. the carrying of the woman would qualify as abduction. acts of lasciviousness. the crime is only grave coercion because the criminal intent of the offender is to force his will upon the woman and not really to restrain the woman of her liberty. the former being a necessary means to commit the latter. the crime committed is murder. the crime is Forcible Abduction with Rape. then a crime of rape is further committed and a complex crime of forcible abduction with rape is committed. If such intention is lacking or does not exist. forcible abduction Forcible abduction defined. even if she consented to the abduction. > It is the taking away of any woman against her will. the crime is forcible abduction and not consented abduction. if sexual intercourse is committed against the offended party after her forcible abduction.Elements and Notes in Criminal Law Book II by RENE CALLANTA
Crimes against chastity where age and reputation of victim are immaterial: rape. Toledo. (People vs. (People vs.
* If the element of lewd design is present. * Lewd designs may be demonstrated by the lascivious acts performed by the offender on her.
* If the main object of the offender is to rape the victim . But it is sufficient that the intent to seduce the girl is present. all that man promised are just machinations of a lewd design and. Since this crime does not involve sexual intercourse.

the intercourse committed with her against he will and over her violent objection should not render her unchaste and a woman of bad reputation. If the previous sexual intercourse was the result of the crime of rape. illicit criminal relations with the person abducted need not be shown. That the taking away of the offended party must be with lewd designs. the crime committed is forcible abduction because of the theory that a child below 12 years of age has no will of her own.
Article 343 CONSENTED ABDUCTION
ELEMENTS: 1. When the violent taking of a woman is motivated by lewd design. it should be treated as a separate offense. the crime committed is forcible abduction. 4. The intent to seduce a girl is sufficient. The law does not punish the offender for the wrong done to the woman since in the eyes of the law.Elements and Notes in Criminal Law Book II by RENE CALLANTA
* True intention of the offender should be ascertained. the taking by the husband of his wife against her will constitutes grave coercion. When the kidnapping is without lewd designs. Abduction is a crime against chastity while kidnapping is a crime against personal liberty. * The virginity of the complaining witness is not a determining factor in forcible abduction. That she must be over 12 and under 18 years of age. the crime committed is forcible abduction. the crime committed is illegal detention. it is sufficient that he was
Sigma Rho ( ΣΡ ) reviewers
220
. (a virgin over twelve and under eighteen) be personally taken from her parent’s home by the accused. Otherwise.
* The taking away of the woman may be accomplished by means of deceit at the beginning and then by means of violence and intimidation later. That the taking away of the offended party must be with her consent. Virginity or maidenhood should not be understood in such a matter of fact as to completely exclude a woman who has had previous sexual intercourse. 3. * In consented Abduction. the crime committed is kidnapping. * The deceit which is termed by the law as solicitation or cajolery maybe in the form of honeyed promises of marriage. When such a situation arises. 2. she consented to her seduction.
* Forcible abduction must be distinguished from the crime of kidnapping. * The purpose of the law on consented abduction is to punish the offender for causing disgrace and scandal to the family of the offended party. the same should be considered as absorbed. after solicitation or cajolery from the offender. Distinction between forcible abduction and illegal detention: When a woman is kidnapped with lewd or unchaste designs. we should consider the application of Article 48 on complex crimes. > But where the offended party was forcibly taken to the house of the defendant to coerce her to marry him. it was held that only grave coercion was committed and not illegal detention. it is not necessary that the young victim. * If the virgin in under 12 years old. * If there is a separation in fact. VIRGINITY may be presumed from the fact that the offended party is unmarried and has been leading moral life. If the detention is only incidental. But if the motive of the offender is to deprive the woman of her liberty. That the offended party must be a virgin. * In order to demonstrate the presence of the lewd design.

d. A public crime is one which can be prosecuted de officio. et al. However.
> And so. ABDUCTION RAPE AND ACTS OF LASCIVIOUSNESS
1. 434)
What is the meaning of “shall have consented” which bars the institution of criminal action for adultery or concubinage? The term “consent” has reference to the tie prior to the commission of the crime. CONCUBINAGE. * The law requires that the complaint must be initiated by the said persons in order that they are named or enumerated in the article. (U. therefore. Formento. 60 Phil. He must however use solicitation. the offended party must include both guilty parties if they are both alive. * In consented abduction. The same can be done either by the father or the mother.. In the complaint. 413)
Sigma Rho ( ΣΡ ) reviewers
221
. Gariboso. b. et al.S. vs. if the same is established. * Distinguished between a private crime and a public crime. Mandia. the parents can do it for her. (People vs. These are the crimes against chastity such as seduction. Jose is that there would be one count of forcible abduction with rape and then each of them will answer for his own rape and the rape of the others minus the first rape which was complexed with the forcible abduction. the original ruling in the case of People v. rape or acts of lasciviousness must be prosecuted upon complaint signed by: a. In other words. These are crimes which are initiated with the filing of an information. 73 Phil. The accusation is usually initiated with the filling of an information. 372) * If the offended party cannot sign the complaint because of her tender age. then it will be considered as a strong evidence to prove lewd design. she alone can file the complaint (People vs. Actual sexual intercourse with the woman is not necessary. the same cannot be prosecuted de oficio. the case should be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter. (People vs. meaning it cannot be initiated by any person except the offended party. offended party by her parents grandparents guardians in the order in which they are named above
* The crimes of adultery and concubinage must be prosecuted upon a complaint signed by the offended spouse. c. 25 Phil 171 ) * The word guardian as mentioned in the law refers to the guardian appointed by the court. pardon refers to the offense after its commission. Seduction. adultery. In the case of a private crime. there should only be one forcible abduction with rape. Schnekenburger. The view adopted in cases of similar nature is to the effect that where more than one person has effected the forcible abduction with rape. meaning it can be prosecuted by any person interested to prosecute the same. the taking away of the virgin must be with lewd design. If this legal requirement is not observed.
Article 344 PROSECUTION OF ADULTERY.. concubinage and acts of lasciviousness. or honeyed promises of marriage to induce the girl to escape from her home. * If the offended party is of age and is in complete possession of her mental faculties. 60 Phil. all the rapes are just the consummation of the lewd design which characterizes the forcible abduction and. abduction. while consent refers to the offense prior to its commission. cajolery or deceit.
* Where several persons participated in the forcible abduction and these persons also raped the offended woman. Adultery and concubinage must be prosecuted upon complaint signed by the offended spouse 2. SEDUCTION. This ruling is no longer the prevailing rule. the offended party gives his or her consent to the future infidelity of the offending spouse.Elements and Notes in Criminal Law Book II by RENE CALLANTA
instrumental in her leaving the house.

The law does not mention the adulteress in the crime of adultery such that only the adulterer shall be held civilly liable. But it must come before the institution of the criminal action. To idemnify the offended women 2. 192 SCRA 635) To be effective. (See the cases of People vs. If any slander or written defamation is made out of any of these crimes. This applies as well to the accomplices. moral damages may be recovered in seduction. he already left her. SEDUCTION OR ABDUCTION
1. the complaint of the offended party is still necessary before such case for libel or oral defamation may proceed. among the liabilities of the offender is to support the child. C. as being held liable for civil damages under Article 345. Pardon is a matter of defense which the accused must plead and prove during the trial. Avila. When the prosecution is already commenced or initiated. seduction.
How about pardon declared by the offended party during the trial of the case? Such a declaration is not a ground for the dismissal of the case. in case a child is born. the law only mentioned the crimes of rape. But marriages must be in good faith. that is a different question because the obligation to support here is not founded on civil law but is the result of a criminal act or a form of punishment.. rape or other lascivious acts. Riotes. This rule does not apply in case of multiple rape
* In the crimes involving rape.A. if the offended woman had given birth to the child. As to whether all of them will acknowledge the child. the mere fact of marriage is not enough because it is already decided that if the offender marries the offended woman without any intention to perform the duties of a husband as shown by the fact that after the marriage. In every case to support the offspring * The civil liability of the adulterer and the concubine is limited to indemnity for damages caused to the offended spouse. * Under Article 2219 of the Civil Code. Therefore.
* Pardon in crimes against chastity. (People vs. To acknowledge the offspring. The offended party may prefer to suffer the outrage in silence rather than to vindicate his honor in public. accessoriesafter-the-fact. * There is likewise no mention of the offender in the crime of acts of lasciviousness. This obligation to support the child may be true even if there are several offenders. However. the marriage would appear as having been contracted only to avoid the punishment. Villorente. abduction. that pardon must come before the prosecution is commenced. the marriage by the offender with the offended woman generally extinguishes criminal liability. and acts of lasciviousness. because the indignity or dishonor brought about by these crimes affects more the offended party than social order. is a bar to prosecution. unless the law should prevent him from doing so 3. should
Sigma Rho ( ΣΡ ) reviewers
222
.3403).Elements and Notes in Criminal Law Book II by RENE CALLANTA
Note: Marriage of the offender with the offended party extinguishes the criminal action or remit the penalty already imposed upon him. * Pardon by the offended woman of the offender is not a manner of extinguishing criminal liability but only a bar to the prosecution of the offender. People vs.
* All these private crimes – except rape – cannot be prosecuted de officio. seduction and abduction.G. it must include both accused. not only of the principal but also of the accomplice and accessory. Even with that marriage. 49 O. The crimes of adultery and concubinage are also included. abduction and seduction. 210 SCRA 647. It will not prosper because the court cannot acquire jurisdiction over these crimes unless there is a complaint from the offended party. abduction. the trial court should not provide in its sentence that the accused.
* In the crimes of rape. the offended woman could still prosecute the offender and that marriage will not have the effect of extinguishing the criminal liability. pardon by the offended woman will no longer be effective because pardon may preclude prosecution but not prevent the same. The paramount decision of whether he or she wanted the crime committed on him or her to be made public is his or hers alone. * It has been held that where the woman was the victim of the said crime could not possibly conceive anymore.
Article 345 CIVIL LIABILITY OF PERSONS GUILTY OF RAPE.

4. Simulation of births 2.Child is baptized or registered in the Registry of birth as hers 2. AND CONCEALMENT OR ABANDONMENT OF A LEGITIMATE CHILD
Acts Punished: 1. 3. Premature marriages (Art. 352). then simulation of birth is committed. 350). Concealing or abandoning any legitimate child with the intent to cause such child to lose its civil status 1. 347). 351). 3.Child loses its real status and acquiires a new one 3. Usurpation of civil status (Art. This should only be proper when there is a probability that the offended woman could give birth to an offspring. Substitution of one child for another 3. Marriage contracted against provisions of law (Art. OTHER PERSONS ENTRUSTED WITH CUSTODY OF OFFENDED PARTY WHO BY ABUSE OF AUTHORITY OR CONFIDENCE SHALL COOPERATE AS ACCOMPLIES
TITLE TWELVE CRIMES AGAINST THE CIVIL STATUS OF PERSONS
Crimes against the civil status of persons 1. 348).
Sigma Rho ( ΣΡ ) reviewers
223
.Actor’s purpose was to cause the loss of any trace as to the child’s true filiation
Simulation of birth takes place when a woman pretends to be pregnant when in fact she is not and on the day of the supposed delivery. 6.
Article 347 SIMULATION OF BIRTHS. she takes the child of another and declares the child to be her own. Simulation of births. Performance of illegal marriage ceremony (Art. This is done by entering in the birth certificate of the child that the offender is the alleged mother of the child when in fact the child belongs to another.
Article 346 LIABILITY OF ASCENDANTS. the crime is not falsification on the part of the parents and the real parents but simulation of birth. 2.Elements and Notes in Criminal Law Book II by RENE CALLANTA
support the child. Requisites: The child must be legitimate The offender conceals or abandons such child The offender has the intent to cause the child to lose its civil status Elements of Simulation of Birth 1. 349).
Illustration: People who have no child and who buy and adopt the child without going through legal adoption. substitution of one child for another and concealment or abandonment of a legitimate child (art. Bigamy (Art. 5. If the parents are parties to the simulation by making it appear in the birth certificate that the parents who bought the child are the real parents. If the child is being kidnapped and they knew that the kidnappers are not the real parents of their child. 2. SUBSTITUTION OF ONE CHILD FOR ANOTHER.

Capillo. What crime was committed by the person who left it in the forest? It is attempted infanticide. paternal or conjugal) claim of another. 349.That the marriage has not been legally dissolved or.That the offender has been legally married. or the rights. one day after his birth. Circumstances qualifying the offense: penalty is heavier when the purpose of the impersonation is to defraud the offended party or his heirs
Article 349 BIGAMY
ELEMENTS: 1. and he was found by a hunter who took him home. Suppose that the purpose of the woman is abandoning the child is to preserve the inheritance of her child by a former marriage. 4. 3. What crime is committed by the woman? The crime committed is abandoning a minor under Article 276.Elements and Notes in Criminal Law Book II by RENE CALLANTA
Questions & Answers 1.
* Committed by asuming the filiation. 2. It seems that the term "civil status" includes one's profession. was taken to and left in the midst of a lonely forest.
Article 348 USURPATION OF CIVIL STATUS
Committed by a person who represents himself as another and assumes the filiation or rights pertaining to such person Notes: * There must be criminal intent to enjoy the civil rights of another by the offender knowing he is not entitled thereto
* The term "civil status" includes one's public station. Suppose a child. duties. as the act of the offender is an attempt against the life of the child. the absent spouse could not yet be presumed dead according to the civil code. capacities and incapacities which determine a person to a given class. or the parental or conjugal rights of another * Usurpation is committed by assuming the filiation or parental (when maternal. 30 Phil. See US v.That the second or subsequent marriage has all the essential requisites for validity. what then is the crime committed? The crime would fall under the second paragraph of Article 347.. et al. To be liable for usurpation of civil status.That he contracts a second or subsequent marriage.
Sigma Rho ( ΣΡ ) reviewers
224
. A woman who has given birth to a child abandons the child in a certain place to free herself of the obligation and duty of rearing and caring for the child. the offender must have the intent to enjoy the rights arising from the civil status of another. 3. The purpose of the woman is to cause the child to lose its civil status so that it may not be able to share in the inheritance. 2. in case his or her spouse is absent.

which may be prosecuted at the instance of the state.. such pronouncement has no retroactive effect as to exculpate him in the bigamy case. the second spouse is not necessarily liable. * There must be a summary proceeding to declare the absent spouse presumptively dead for purposes of remarriage * Failure to exercise due diligence to ascertain the whereabouts of the 1st wife is bigamy through reckless imprudence * A judicial declaration of the nullity of a marriage void ab initio is now required * The language of the law is clear when it declared “before the former marriage has been legally dissolved.
* One who vouches that there is no legal impediment knowing that one of the parties is already married is an accomplice
Distinction between bigamy and illegal marriage: Bigamy is a form of illegal marriage. If the first marriage is void from the beginning.. 735) * The civil case for annulment of the first marriage does not pose a prejudicial question as to warrant the suspension of the trial and proceeding in the criminal case for bigamy.G. * One who. when raised as a defense. for only competent courts have such authority. The first is an offense against civil status. as plaintiff in the civil case prevails. 68 O. et al.2952) * One convicted for bigamy may be prosecuted for concubinage as both are distinct offenses
* One convicted of bigamy may also be prosecuted for concubinage as both are distinct offenses. the accused should be convicted since until and unless annulled. knowingly consents to be married to one who is already married is guilty of bigamy knowing that the latter’s marriage is still valid and subsisting. The test is not whether the defendant has already been tried for the same act. such nullity of the marriage is not a defense in a charge of bigamy. The offender must have a valid and subsisting marriage.Elements and Notes in Criminal Law Book II by RENE CALLANTA
Notes: * The crime does not fall within the category of private crimes that can be prosecuted only at the instance of the offended party PUBLIC CRIME • For the crime of bigamy to prosper the first marriage must be valid.
•
•
* A simulated marriage is not marriage at all and can be used as a defense for bigamy
* Good faith is a defense in bigamy. (Roco. et al. Parties to a marriage should not be permitted to judge its nullity. If the second wife knew of the previous marriage of the accused. but whether he has been put in jeopardy for the same offense. The language of Article 349 indicates the crime of bigamy is committed by one person who contracts a subsequent marriage while the former marriage is valid and subsisting. Need for judicial declaration of nullity
The second marriage must have all the essential requisites for validity were it not for the existence of the first marriage. and may be prosecuted only at the instance of the offended party. and his first marriage is annulled. Relova. although not yet married before.
Sigma Rho ( ΣΡ ) reviewers
225
. 22 SCRA 731. the bond of matrimony remains or is maintained. the second is an offense against chastity. he contracts a subsequent marriage. (Landicho vs. Cinco.
* In the crime of bigamy.” The Supreme Court said the even if the accused. Consequently. she will be liable for the crime of bigamy but only as an accomplice. Despite the fact that the marriage is still subsisting.

intimidation or fraud The requirements of the law for a valid marriage are: 1. except in marriage under exceptional circumstances. A woman whose marriage having been dissolved or annulled. because of the probability that there might be a confusion regarding the paternity of
Sigma Rho ( ΣΡ ) reviewers
226
. One where the consent of the other was obtained by means of violence. or such premature marriages. 3. 2. that is. the crime punished under Article 350 is deemed absorbed in the bigamy. 3. Marriage license. If the second marriage is void because the accused knowingly contracted it without complying with legal requirements as the marriage license. Authority of the person performing the marriage.
Article 350 MARRIAGE CONTRACTED AGAINST PROVISIONS OF LAWS
ELEMENTS: 1. although he was previously married. The marriage was in disregard of a legal impediment. That he knew at the time that a. A widow who within 301 days from death of husband. he should not be guilty of bigamy because otherwise. solemnize
5. or b. the requirement of the law were not complied with. That the offender contracted marriage. 4. intimidation or fraud.Elements and Notes in Criminal Law Book II by RENE CALLANTA
Illegal marriage includes also such other marriages which are performed without complying with the requirements of law. married before her delivery or within 301 days after the legal separation * The Supreme Court has already taken into account the reason why such marriage within 301 days is
made criminal. Marriage solemnized by a minister or priest who does not have the required authority to marriages. 2. The marriage does not constitute bigamy. The marriage is contracted knowing that the requirements of the law have not been complied with or in disregard of legal impediments. or such marriage which was solemnized by one who is not authorized to solemnize the same. Note: Circumstance qualifying the offense: if either of the contracting parties obtains the consent of the other by means of violence. and 4. Their consent freely given. got married or before her delivery. if she was pregnant at the time of his death 2. The legal capacity of the contracting parties. * The law further provides that for accused to be liable under this article. 2.
Marriages contracted against the provisions of laws 1.
Article 351 PREMATURE MARRIAGE
Acts punished: 1.

or are sufficient to
Sigma Rho ( ΣΡ ) reviewers
227
. commission.Elements and Notes in Criminal Law Book II by RENE CALLANTA
the child who would be born. status. real or imaginary. discredit or contempt of the person defamed. or a vice or defect. If this reason does not exist because the former husband is impotent.
Article 353 LIBEL
ELEMENTS: 1. Slander (Art. 5. 358). or of a vice or defect. or any act. 355). Intriguing against honor (Art. unless in the meantime she has given birth to a child. 4. A charge is sufficient if the words are calculated to induce the hearer to suppose and understand that the person against whom they are uttered is guilty of certain offenses. 2. Words calculated to induce suspicion are more effective in destroying reputation than false charges directly made. 2.
* Article 84 of the Civil Code provides that no marriage license shall be issued to a widow until after 300 days following the death of her husband. Notes: LIBEL is a public and malicious imputation of a crime. 4. That it must be malicious. That the imputation must be directed at a natural or juridical person. 3. 359). condition. 364). 5. discredit or contempt of a natural or juridical person. that belief of the woman that after all there could be no confusion even if she would marry within 301 days may be taken as evidence of good faith and that would negate criminal intent. 363). status or circumstances tending to cause the dishonor. condition. Threatening to publish and offer to prevent such publication for a compensation (Art. Prohibited publication of acts referred to in the course of official proceedings (Art. or was shown to be sterile such that the woman has had no child with him. 6. or one who is dead. Ironical and metaphorical language is a favored vehicle for slander. 7. omission. That there must be an imputation of a crime. Libel by means of writings or similar means (Art. That the imputation must be made publicly. real or imaginary or any act. 3. That the imputation must tend to cause the dishonor. 356).
Article 352 PERFORMANCE OF ILLEGAL MARRIAGE CEREMONY
Act punished: performance of any illegal marriage ceremony by a priest or minister of any religious denomination or sect or by civil authorities
TITLE THIRTEEN CRIMES AGAINST HONOR
Crimes against honor 1. 357). Incriminating innocent person (Art. Slander by deed (Art. or to blacken the memory of one who is dead Character of the words used to make it defamatory. or circumstances.

which includes oral defamation. So. The presumption of malice attaches to the defamatory statement especially if it appears to be insulting per se. When the defamatory statement or utterance is qualifiedly privileged. It does not need proof. The meaning given by the writer or the
Sigma Rho ( ΣΡ ) reviewers
228
. The question is not what the writer of an alleged libel means but what the words used by him mean. So. Malice in fact – This refers to malice as a fact. when the privileged character is qualified. If the tenor of the utterance or statement is defamatory. the malice in law is negated. Malice in fact becomes necessary only if the malice in law has been rebutted. When the privileged character is said to be absolute. malice in fact requires evidence. O’Connell. the alleged libelous or defamatory utterance was made with good motives and justifiable ends or by the fact that the utterance was privileged in character. In the crime of libel.S. Otherwise. Malice in fact comes into play when the statement made is not defamatory per se. The law presumes that the defamer made the imputation without good intention or justifiable motive.Elements and Notes in Criminal Law Book II by RENE CALLANTA
impeach his honesty. Kinds of Malice. however. 767)
Malice has been defined as a term used to indicate the fact that the defamer is prompted by personal ill or spite and speaks not in response to duty but merely to injure the reputation of the person defamed. Therefore. there is no need to adduce evidence of malice in fact. the presumption of malice does not arise from the mere publication of the defamatory statement.
* Malice is presumed to exist in injurious publications * Where the imputation is based upon matters of public interest. proof of malice in fact will be admitted to take the place of malice in law. oral defamation or slander. A matter of public interest is common property. 37 Phil. Illustration: As regards the statements made by Congressmen while they are deliberating or discussing in Congress. It is the court which will prove whether it is defamatory or not. virtue or reputation. the statement will not be actionable whether criminal or civil because that means the law does not allow prosecution on an action based thereon. or to hold him up to public ridicule.
Malice in law – This is assumed and is inferred from the defamatory character of an imputation. the legal presumption of malice arises even without proof. (U. as when the offender resorts to underserved praises or satirical method of impeaching the virtue. It can also appear in the form of innuendos. in fact. The utterance or statement would not be actionable because malice in law does not exist. there is no need for the prosecution to present evidence of malice. The mere fact that the utterance or statement is defamatory negates a legal presumption of malice. for the complainant to prosecute the accused for libel. while malice in law does not require evidence. * This discussion leads to the conclusion that the determination of libelous meaning is left to the good judgment of the court after considering all the circumstances which lead to the utterance or publication of the defamatory statement. honesty and reputation of the offended party. It is enough that the alleged defamatory or libelous statement be presented to the court verbatim. The presence and existence of personal ill-will or spite may still appear even if the statement is not defamatory. malice may be presumed from the publication of the defamatory statement because no one has a right to invade another’s privacy. where the defamatory acts may be presumed from the publication of the defamatory acts imputed refer to the private life of the individual. vs. he has to prove that the accused was actuated with malice (malice in fact) in making the statement. the privileged character of a defamatory statement may be absolute or qualified. Malice in law can be negated by evidence that.
Distinction between malice in fact and malice in law Malice in fact is the malice which the law presumes from every statement whose tenor is defamatory . In law.

If not named it must be shown that the description of the person referred to in the defamatory publication was sufficiently clear so that at least a 3rd person would have identified the plaintiff. So. Illustration: If a person uttered that “All the Marcoses are thieves. even a compliment which is undeserved. Writing a letter to another person other than the person defamed is sufficient publication. and 4. The question is not what the writer meant but what he conveyed to those who heard or read him (People vs. even though the libel was committed at one and the same time.
* Person libeled must be identified. A person who repeats a slander or libelous publication heard or read from another is presumed to indorse it. C." there will only be one libel because these particular Marcoses regarded as thieves are not specifically identified. 2638)
Sigma Rho ( ΣΡ ) reviewers
229
. mother and daughter are thieves. One is liable for publication of defamatory words against another although he is only repeating what he heard and names the source of his information. “All the Marcoses – the father. 3. that the communication made is privileged. * Note that in libel. If the offender said. In order that one defamatory utterance or imputation may be considered as having dishonored more than one person. 255 SCRA 692)
> The crime is libel if the defamation is in writing or printed media. 2. unless they are identified in the same libel. has been held to be libelous.G.
The presumption of malice is rebutted by showing :
1. Court of Appeals. Encarnacion. As a matter of fact. the person defamed need not be expressly identified. * If you do not know the particular persons libeled. that there is justifiable motive for making it.A. But the publication need not refer by name to the libeled party. you cannot consider one libel as giving rise to several counts of libel. > The crime is slander or oral defamation if it is not printed. (People vs.. (See Sazon vs.” There will be three counts of libel because each person libeled is distinctly dishonored. Republication of defamatory article is punishable. the delivery of a defamatory writing to a typesetter is sufficient publication. 204 SCRA 1) How to overcome the presumption of malice.
* To presume publication there must be a reasonable probability that the alleged a libelous matter was thereby exposed to be read or seen by 3rd persons.Elements and Notes in Criminal Law Book II by RENE CALLANTA
words used by him is immaterial. that the accused published the defamatory imputation with good intention. * If the offended parties in the libel were distinctly identified. accused must prove the truth of the defamatory imputation in those cases wherein truth is a defense.
* When a libel is addressed to several persons. those persons dishonored must be identified. there will only be one count of libel. there will be as many libels as there are persons dishonored. 55 O. there will only be one count of libel. even if there are several persons offended by the libelous utterance or statement. Salumbides and Reanzares. Otherwise. PUBLICATION is the communication of the defamatory matter to some third person/s
Publication is the communication of the defamatory matter to a third person or persons. It is enough that he could possibly be identified because “innuendos may also be a basis for prosecution for libel.

Poof of truth of a defamatory imputation is not even admissible in evidence. Where the comments are worded in praise of the plaintiff. * In libel cases. It was for justifiable ends.. Reyes. HELD: Dismissed. When proof of truth is admissible 1.
Libel -false accusation need not be made under oath
Perjury -false accusation is made under oath
Newsweek v IAC Newsweek portrayed the island province of Negros Occidental as a place dominated by big landowners. the crime of libel is committed unless one acted with good motives or justifiable end. Defamatory remarks directed at a group of persons are not actionable unless the statements are all-embracing or sufficiently specific for victim to be identifiable. the publication is deemed libelous (Jimenez vs. Rule regarding Public Officers:
Sigma Rho ( ΣΡ ) reviewers
230
. It was published with good motives. To maintain a libel suit. political and economic status in the community which is too well known to all concerned. but the import conveyed by the entirety of the language to the ordinary reader.Elements and Notes in Criminal Law Book II by RENE CALLANTA
Criterion to determine whether statements are defamatory 1) words are calculated to induce the hearers to suppose and understand that the person against who they are uttered were guilty of certain offenses. provided if its related to the discharged of his official duties. A complaint from the offended party is necessary. or to hold the person up to public ridicule (US v O’Connel) 2 )construed not only as to the expression used but also with respect to the whole scope and apparent object of the writer. 2. In this case. Plaintiffs are associations of sugarcane planters. unless what was imputed pertains to an act which constitutes a crime and when the person to whom the imputation was made is a public officer and the imputation pertains to the performance of official duty. 2.
Requisites of defense in defamation 1. An action for libel allegedly directed against a group of sugar planters cannot be done by resort to filing a class suit as each victim has his specific reputation to protect. If it appears that the matter charged as libelous is true. or are sufficient to impeach their honesty. virtue or reputation. the specific victim must be identifiable. When the act or omission imputed constitutes a crime regardless of whether the offended party is a private individual or a public officer. 161 SCRA 427). it cannot be prosecuted de officio. the imputation is not admissible. ( Sazon vs. even if the act or omission imputed does not constitute a crime. et al. are which intended are intended to ridicule rather than praise him.
If a crime is a private crime. like describing him with qualities which plaintiff does not deserve because of his social.(P v Encarnacion) * The test of libelous meanings is not the analysis of a sentence into component phrases with the meticulous care of the grammarian or stylist. 27 SCRA 52)
* Even if what was imputed is true. Other than these. each of the plaintiffs has a separate and distinct reputation in the community. 3. CA. FAC. When the offended party is a government employee. 255 SCRA 692) Praises undeserved are slander in disguise. (Lacsa vs. the question is not what the offender means but what the words used by him mean.

* Under our libel law. With his jurisprudence. (People vs. but proof of malice must now be clear and convincing. C. which are not relevant or related to the judicial. but proof has not only been shifted to the plaintiff in libel. It is enough to rely on presumed malice in libel cases involving a public official or public figure. supra. But any attack on the private character of the officer on matters which are not related to the discharge of his official functions may constitute libel since under our laws. to wit: judicial. legislative and executive. 6 Phil.A. The privileged character simply does away with the presumption of malice which the prosecution has to prove in such a case. But any attack upon the private character of the public officers on matters which are not related to the discharge of their official functions may constitute Libel. defamatory remarks against government employees with respect to facts related to the discharge of their official duties will not constitute libel. it should now be emphasized that ‘actual malice” is now required to be proven. In the first place. Secondly. (U. Court of Appeals. Sazon vs. 50) * If the defamatory imputation is in the nature of self-defense under Article 11 of the Revised Penal Code such that the publication was done in good faith. (Lu Chu Sing. vs. the ruling appears to be the true only if the offended party is a government employee. Mendoza. Gonzales. 76 Phil. People vs. 74 O. legislative or executive proceedings. if defendant is able to prove the truth of the imputations.. the publisher becomes liable when he makes comments or remarks upon the private character of person. Bustos. The burden of proof has not only been shifted to the plaintiff in libel. vs. Lu Tiong Gui. 669) * Libel in answer to another libel is not a defense. the fact that a communication is privileged does not mean that it is not actionable. it is a matter of defense. the right of the press to criticize public officers does not authorize defamation. 206.
Article354 REQUIREMENT OF PUBLICITY
Kinds of privileged communication
a.
* Malice is now understood to mean publication with knowledge of falsehood or reckless disregard of the statement’s veracity. without malice and just adequate enough to protect his good name. with respect to facts related to the discharge of his official duties.S. (Pellicena vs. et al. supra). ABSOLUTELY PRIVILEGED – not actionable even if the actor has acted in bad faith b.Elements and Notes in Criminal Law Book II by RENE CALLANTA
Defamatory remarks and comments on the conduct or acts of public officers which are related to the discharge of their official duties will not constitute libel if the accused proves the truth of the imputation. The publisher is limited only to the narration of what had taken place even if the report contains defamatory and injurious matter affecting another person. QUALIFIEDLY PRIVILEGED – those which although containing defamatory
imputations could not be actionable unless made with malice or bad faith
Sigma Rho ( ΣΡ ) reviewers
231
.G. * Under Article 354.G.
Case Doctrines: * The fact that a communication is privileged is not a proper ground for the dismissal of a complaint for libel. 5607) * The fair and true report of official proceedings refer to proceedings in the three branches of government. 40 O. the statement may be considered privileged. libel is not committed for as long as what is contained is a fair and true report of the proceedings. Baja. * Where malice cannot be inferred from false defamatory statements.

that the statements in the communication are made in good faith without malice in fact b. or of a statement. If after the prosecution has presented its evidence. * The presumption of malice. made in good faith. or of any other act performed by a public officer 2. 301 SCRA 1 ) Santos v CA HELD: No malice.” “If the comment is an expression of opinion based on established facts. or superior. report. The public primary interest is in the event. he simply furnished the readers with the info that a complaint has been filed against the brokerage firm and reproduced the pleading verbatim with no embellishments. “If a matter is a subject of public or general interest. if no good intention and justifiable motive for making it is shown EXCEPTION: a. GENERAL RULE: Every defamatory imputation is presumed malicious even if it be true. that it is made in good faith that it is made without any comments or remarks
Doctrine of fair comment “A fair comment on matters of public interest is included and is covered by the mantle of privileged communication which constitutes a valid defense against libel and slander. then it is immaterial that the opinion happens to be mistaken. moral or social duty Requisites 1. or speech delivered in said proceedings. moral or social duty. or other official proceedings which are not of confidential nature. however. that the communication is addressed to an officer or a board. that the publication of a report of an official proceeding is a fair and true report of a judicial. It is not a ground for a motion to quash after the arraignment of the accused. comes into play when the defamatory statement is a conditional or qualified privileged communication. it becomes evident that the defamatory statement was made by the accused because of a legal. (See Mercado vs. To overcome this presumption of malice in law. as long as it might be reasonably inferred from the facts. the Court said.
Article 355 LIBEL BY MEANS OF WRITING OR SIMILAR MEANS
Sigma Rho ( ΣΡ ) reviewers
232
. without any comments and remarks Requisites 1. 116 SCRA 93). then the accused can file a demurrer to evidence. 3. moral or social duty to make the communication or at least he had an interest to be upheld 2. fair and true report. there is absence of malice in law which is presumed in all defamatory imputations. the defamer must prove during the proceeding that the defamatory imputation was committed because of a legal. private communication in performance of legal. it cannot become less so merely because a private individual is involved. * Privileged communication as categorized in this discussion is a matter of defense. the public focus is on the conduct of the participants and not on their prior anonymity or notoriety. the presumption of malice under Article 354 has no application. having some interest or duty on the matter 3. CFI of Rizal. CA. as in the meantime.Elements and Notes in Criminal Law Book II by RENE CALLANTA
* When the defamatory imputation comes under the criteria of an absolute privileged communication. moral or social duty.” Further explaining the right to comment on a public issue. ( Borjal vs. legislative. that the person who made the communication had a legal.

No.Elements and Notes in Criminal Law Book II by RENE CALLANTA
A libel may be committed by means of – 1. editor or manager of a newspaper. through threats of accusation or exposure.A. probably because at the time the Revised Penal Code was conceived. That the offender is a reporter. 10. Offering to prevent the publication of such libel for compensation or money consideration.
* It involves the unlawful extortion of money by appealing to the fear of the victim. 3. 3. Photograph.
AND
OFFER
TO
PREVENT
SUCH
Threatening another to publish a libel concerning him.
Article 357 PROHIBITED PUBLICATION OF ACTS REFERRED TO IN THE COURSE OF OFFICIAL PROCEEDINGS
ELEMENTS: 1. virtue and reputation of said person. Two words are expressive of the crime – hush money. 9. Printing. the law provides.. G. Engraving. under Article 356. child. Casten. Lithography. Eguia. “or any similar means” which easily qualifies television is such species or category.R. television is not included. Painting. It contemplates of two offenses: a threat to establish a libel and an offer to prevent such publication. The gravamen of the crime is the intent to extort money or other things of value. Writing. That such facts are offensive to the honor. 2.
Sigma Rho ( ΣΡ ) reviewers
233
. (People vs.
Blackmail – In its metaphorical sense. blackmail may be defined as any unlawful extortion of money by threats of accusation or exposure. 7. 2.
* In the enumeration above. 6.. 38 Phil. spouse. 857) Blackmail is possible in (1) light threats under Article 283. et al. television had not yet been invented. 4. (US v. Theatrical exhibition. or Any similar means. Cinematographic exhibition. 2. 5. However. Radio. or other members of his family. daily or magazine. or his parents. and (2) threatening to publish. a libel for compensation. 8. 07924-CR promulgated December 13. That he publishes facts connected with the private life of another. or offering to prevent the publication of. C. 1974)
Article 356 THREATENING TO PUBLISH LIBEL PUBLICATION FOR A COMPENSATION
Acts punished 1.

action of a serious and insulting nature (Grave slander) 2. Lacsa v IAC Lacsa found that Marquez was not a proprietary member of PCA thus not qualified to be president. To be classified as such it must be free from malice. such character was lost when it was published. But these must refer to facts which are intimately related to the offended party’s family and home. Oct. Clarin. editor. it involves conjugal troubles and quarrels because of infidelity.” It prohibits reporters. 37 O. 173 SCRA 645)..G. Other circumstances like the presence of important people when the crime was committed. 1477 . 1968 ) It is a common expression of anger or displeasure. It is seldom taken in its literal sense by the hearer. Court of Appeals. Granting that the letter was privileged communication. amending Rep. (People vs. the social standing and position of the offended party are factors which may influence the gravity and defamatory imputation (Victorio vs. written out of a duty of an officer towards the members. 1106) * Words uttered in the heat of anger constitute light oral defamation (P v Doronilla) * If the utterances were made publicly and were heard by many people and the accused at the same time levelled his finger at the complainant. columnist or duly accredited reporter of any newspaper. It is viewed more as a Sigma Rho ( ΣΡ ) reviewers
234
. No. Article 357 has come to be known as the “ Gag Law. Act. light insult or defamation – not serious in nature (simple slander)
Factors that determine gravity of the offense: a) expressions used b) personal relations of the accused and the offended party c) circumstances surrounding the case Notes: * The gravity of oral defamation depends not only on the expressions but also on the personal relation of the accused with the offended party.R. * With its provisions. No. He wrote to the BOD and to Marquez. virtue and reputation of persons. * Under Republic Act No.A. He caused to publish the second letter. HELD: Letter is not privileged communication. * Note that slander can be committed even if the defamatory remark was done in the absence of the offended party. 26. the publisher. facts which are offensive to the honor. adultery or crimes involving chastity.Elements and Notes in Criminal Law Book II by RENE CALLANTA
Note: * Even though made in connection with or under the pretext that it is necessary in the narration of any judicial or administrative proceedings wherein such facts have been mentioned. 58. L-19857. (People vs. editors or managers of newspapers from publishing articles containing facts connected with the private life of an individual.
Atienza. magazine or periodical of general circulation cannot be compelled to reveal the source of any news report information appearing in the said publication which was related to him in confidence unless the court or a house or committee of Congress finds that such revelation is demanded by the security of the State. C.
Article 358 ORAL DEFAMATION / SLANDER
Two Kinds of Oral Defamation:
1. G. oral defamation is committed (P v Salleque) * The word “ puta ” does not impute that the complainant is prostitute. Occasionally.

That the offender performs any act not included in any other crime against honor. Simple slander by deed. (Reyes vs. 27 SCRA 686) Article 359 SLANDER BY DEED
ELEMENTS: 1. That such act casts dishonor. Guilty of slander by deed. which is of a serious nature. offended party under 12 yrs of age+lewd designs
Article 360 PERSONS RESPONSIBLE FOR LIBEL
Who are liable: a. use of force or intimidation ii. Slander by Deed-irritation or annoyance + attendant publicity and dishonor or contempt. discredit or contempt upon the offended party. * Slander by deed refers to performance of an act. That such act is performed in the presence of other person or persons. a teacher. contempt and ridicule. then the crime would be maltreatment which is classified as slight physical injuries. Unjust Vexation-irritation or annoyance/anything that annoys or irritates without justification. discredit or contempt upon another person. (P v Costa) * If the acts committed against the offended party caused her physical injury which did not require medical attendance.1)
Sigma Rho ( ΣΡ ) reviewers
235
. not use of words. and Grave slander by deed. 2. in the presence of many people has put her to dishonor. Notes: Slander by deed is a defamation committed by the offender against the complainant through the performance of any act which casts dishonor. person who publishes. 2. etc. deprivation of reason or rendering the offended unconscious iii. the circumstances under which the act was committed. b. the occasion. c.
* Whether a certain slanderous act constitutes slander by deed of a serious nature or not. People. The crowd laughed. 3. that is. depends on the
social standing of the offended party.
Two kinds of slander by deed 1. Distinctions: a. P v Motita > Accused held a mirror between the legs of complainant to reflect her private parts.Elements and Notes in Criminal Law Book II by RENE CALLANTA threat on the part of the accused to manifest and emphasize a point. exhibits or causes the publication or exhibition of any defamation in writing or similar means(par. Acts of lasciviousness-irritation or annoyance + any of 3 circumstance provided in Art335 of RPC on rape i.
* The acts of slapping and boxing the woman.

by its very nature.Elements and Notes in Criminal Law Book II by RENE CALLANTA
b. 54 SCRA 101) Where one of the offended parties is a public officer: a. It is something inherent and natural in the crime of libel. 1979) Note: Offended party must file complaint for defamation imputing a crime which cannot be prosecuted de oficio (e. Venue of criminal and civil action for damages in cases of written defamation: a. editor or business manager of a daily newspaper magazine or serial publication(par. where any of the offended parties actually resides at the time of the commission of the offense * Libel cases are within the original and exclusive jurisdiction of the Regional Trial Courts. (Lu Chu Sing vs. adultery.RTC of Manila OR . Soriano v IAC > The Philippines follows the multiple publication rule which means that every time the same written matter is communicated. vs. Sayo. Inferior courts have no jurisdiction to try written defamation. seduction. * Where the publication is libelous per se.2) d.. et al. This is so because libel. abduction and acts of lasciviousness shall be prosecuted by the offended party by filing a complaint. owner of the printing plant which publishes a libelous article with his consent and all other persons who in any way participate in or have connection with its publication (US v Ortiz) * A defamatory statement by itself is not a crime. (People vs.. and acts of lasciviousness) * Under the last paragraph of Article 360.city/province where the article is printed and 1st published b. causes dishonor. April 30. Outside of this enumeration by law. if his office is in the City of Manila . the crime is considered a public crime which may be prosecuted de oficio.RTC of the city/province where he held office at the time of offense OR .where the article is 1st published Where one of the offended parties is a private individual: . L-47880. abduction. 669)
Sigma Rho ( ΣΡ ) reviewers
236
. the place where the written defamation was printed and first published. Hechanova. author or editor of a book or pamphlet c. 76 Phil. where the libelous article is printed and 1st published OR b. the information or complaint must contain averments as to whether the offended party is a private or public officer at the time of the commission of the offense and whenever possible. such communication is considered a distinct and separate publication of libel. rape. only defamation consisting of the imputation of private offenses such as adultery. It is therefore in this concept that proprietors and editors of periodicals are also made responsible for the appearance of defamatory matters in any newspaper under their management. Hon. Lu Tiong Gui. et al.RTC of province/city where he actually resides at the time of the crime . concubinage.g. It is the undue publication of the defamatory imputation which makes it a crime. concubinage. seduction.where article was printed or 1st published * In order to prevent controversies as to the venue of criminal actions for written defamation. (Agbayani. Otherwise . actual damages need not be established. disrepute and discredit and injury to the reputation of the offended party.

(Dorr vs.That the offender performs an act. S. 11 Phil. the offended party is a government employee. * The main thrust of the law is to punish libelous remarks or comments on matters which are privileged.That such act does not constitute perjury. 3. or suspicion. ( Phee vs. upon which a definite finding may be made by the court (US v Sotto) * Admission on the part of the accused that he committed a mistake will not serve to free him from criminal liability.That by such act he directly incriminates or imputes to an innocent person the commission of a crime. it appears that the matter charged as libelous is TRUE (for situations 1 and 2 above) b. It must rest upon positive direct evidence. if made with malice in fact.. is guilty of libel even through the defamatory matter is published in connection with a privileged communication. La Vanguardia. rumors.Elements and Notes in Criminal Law Book II by RENE CALLANTA Article 361 PROOF OF THE TRUTH
Admissible when: a. 706)
INCRIMINATORY MACHINATIONS Article363 INCRIMINATING INNOCENT PERSON
ELEMENTS: 1. 45 Phil 211 )
Article 362 LIBELOUS REMARKS
Libelous remarks or comments on privileged matters (under Art. 354) if made with malice in fact will not exempt the author and editor. 2. a newspaper reporter who distorts facts connected with official proceedings or who adds comments thereon as to cast aspersion on the character of the parties involved. it was published with good motives and for a justifiable end (for situation 1 only) Notes: The proof of the truth of the accusation cannot be made to rest upon mere hearsay. the act or omission imputed constitutes a crime regardless of whether the offended party is a private individual or a public officer b. even if the act or omission imputed does not constitute a crime provided it is related to the discharge of his official duties Requisites for Acquittal: a. U.
Sigma Rho ( ΣΡ ) reviewers
237
. So. * This article is a limitation to the defense of privileged communication. But it may serve to mitigate the penalty imposed on him or lessen his civil liability.

defamatory or ii. * Intriguing against honor is referred to as gossiping. pictures or caricatures to ridicule the victim. G. the crime is intriguing against honor.
* There is such a crime as incriminating an innocent person through unlawful arrest. If the offender made the utterance. the crime may be perjury if there is
a willful falsity of the statements made. and passed it to another in order to cause dishonor to the complainant’s reputation. without ascertaining the truth of a defamatory utterance. crafty and secret ploy which produces the same effect. repeats the same and pass it on to another. It is defined as an act and. more than a mere utterance is required. Rather. and the accused adopted as his own the information he obtained.Elements and Notes in Criminal Law Book II by RENE CALLANTA
Two Kinds: a. even though he repeats the libelous statement as coming from another. April 30. to commit this crime.
* If the incriminating machination is made orally. the crime may be falsification if the crime is a material
matter made in a written statement which is required by law to have been rendered.
Distinction between intriguing against honor and slander: When the source of the defamatory utterance is unknown and the offender simply repeats or passes the same.. making a statement which is b i. the act is one of Intriguing Against Honor. passes it to others. the crime may be slander or oral defamation. this has been interpreted to be possible only in the so-called planting
of evidence. The offender. as long as the source is identified. The offender does not employ written or spoken words. 1966)
Article 364 INTRIGUING AGAINST HONOR
How committed: -by any person who shall make any intrigue which has for its principal purpose to blemish the honor or reputation of another person Notes: * The crime is committed by resorting to any form of scheme or plot designed to blemish the reputation of a person. Who started the defamatory news is unknown. * Committed by saying to others an unattributable thing. L-20721. * If the incriminatory machination was made in writing and under oath. if said to the person himself it is slander. he uses some ingenious.
therefore. Alagao. perjurious (if made under oath and is false) b.
* If the statement in writing is not under oath.R. et al. the crime committed by that offender is slander. * Where the source of polluted information can be traced and pinpointed. planting evidence Note: article is limited to planting evidence and the like * This crime cannot be committed through verbal incriminatory statements. and without subscribing to the truth thereof. (People vs. Distinction between intriguing against honor and incriminating an innocent person:
Sigma Rho ( ΣΡ ) reviewers
238
. No.
* As far as this crime is concerned. But where the source or the author of the derogatory information can not be determined and the accused borrows the same. where the source of the defamatory nature of the utterance is known. the act is Slander and not Intriguing Against Honor. and offender makes a republication thereof. to the damage of the offended party.

not authorized by all the parties to any private communication or spoken word a) taps any wire of cable OR b) uses any other device or arrangement. Gaanan v IAC > An extension phone is not one of those prohibited under RA 4200. whether or not a participant in the above-mentioned acts: a) knowingly possesses any tape record. intercept. wire record. That the offender does or fails to do an act. or any other such record or copies thereof of any communication or spoken word b) replays the same for any other person c)communicates the contents thereof. That it be without malice. That material damage results. 4. the offender resorts to an intrigue for the purpose of blemishing the honor or reputation of another person.Elements and Notes in Criminal Law Book II by RENE CALLANTA
In intriguing against honor. whether complete or partial. or record such communication or spoken word by using a device commonly known as a dictaphone or dictagraph or walkie talkie or tape recorder 2) any person.
CRIMINAL NEGLIGENCE
Article 365 ELEMENTS OF RECKLESS IMPRUDENCE:
1. In incriminating an innocent person.Wire Tapping Act
Acts punished: 1) any person. to any other person Notes: * Peace officer is exempt if acts done under lawful order of the court. There must be either a physical interruption through the wiretap or the deliberate installation of a device or arrangement in order to overhear. That the doing of or the failure to do that act is voluntary. disc record. 2. * Information obtained in violation of the Act is inadmissible in evidence in any hearing or investigation. You can only use the recording for the case for which it was validly requested. to secretly overhear. the offender performs an act by which he directly incriminates or imputes to an innocent person the commission of a crime.
RA4200 The Anti .
Sigma Rho ( ΣΡ ) reviewers
239
. 3. The extension phone was not installed for such purpose. intercept or record the spoken words.

the penalty shall be that which is next lower in degree than that which should be imposed.
Quasi-offenses punished 1. in doing the alleged negligent act. the law imposes on the doer. 809. or to take precaution against such result. That the damage impending to be caused in not immediate or the danger is not clearly manifest.
* There is no more issue on whether culpa is a crime in itself or only a mode of incurring criminal liability. taking into consideration a. foresee harm to the person injured? If so. in the period which the court may deem proper to apply. That there is inexcusable lack of precaution on the part of the offender. That there is lack of precaution on the part of the offender. would constitute a grave or less grave felony or light felony. 813)
Test of Negligence. a felony may result from dolo or culpa. had it been intentional. the criminal negligence would only be simple.Elements and Notes in Criminal Law Book II by RENE CALLANTA
5. would have constituted a light felony. When the penalty provided for the offense ifs equal or lower than that provided in pars.
Would a prudent man in the position of the person to whom negligence is attributed. physical condition. Committing through reckless imprudence any act which. Committing through simple imprudence or negligence an act which would otherwise constitute a grave or a less serious felony.
Notes: Test for determining whether or not a person is negligent of doing of an act which results in injury or damages to another person or his property. the imprudence is reckless. if done maliciously. the duty to refrain from the course of action. 2. followed by ignoring the admonition borne of this provisions. 2.
Did the defendant. Causing damage to the property of another through reckless imprudence or simple imprudence or negligence.
Distinction between reckless imprudence and negligence: The two are distinguished only as to whether the danger that would be impending is easily perceivable or not. In this case. degree of intelligence. 37 Phil. Smith. If it could hardly be perceived.1 and 2 of Article 365. then he is guilty of negligence. time and place.
ELEMENTS OF SIMPLE IMPRUDENCE:
1. Failure to do so constitutes negligence. and c.
It is practically settled that criminal negligence is only a modality in incurring criminal liability . If the danger that may result from the criminal negligence is clearly perceivable. Causing through simple imprudence or negligence some wrong which. This is so because under Article 3.
Sigma Rho ( ΣΡ ) reviewers
240
.
The penalties under Article 365 has no application in the following cases: 1. Reasonable foresight of harm. is the constitutive fact of negligence. use the reasonable care and caution which an ordinary prudent person would have used in the same situation? If not. 4. 3. other circumstances regarding persons. (Picart vs. his employment or occupation b.

75 O. P v Carillo > 13 yr old girl dies 3 days after surgery due to an overdose of Nubain which triggered a heart attack that caused brain damage. the death of a person is caused. Buearano v CA
Sigma Rho ( ΣΡ ) reviewers
241
. by the negligence of another. 1979. Quiñones. (People vs. Any accident therefore which takes place in said corner gives to rise to the presumption of negligence on the part driver of the motor vehicle running thru-street has already reached the middle part of the intersection. * When negligence does not result in any injury to persons or damage to property. 57 O. 3) Abandoning usually punishable under Art 275. Carillo was the anesthesiologist. [25] 460) P v Cano > Negligence is a quasi-offense. Rep.. 44 O. Gorgonio. Negligence becomes punishable when it results in the commission of a crime. is suddenly placed in an emergency and compelled to act instantly to avoid a collision or injury is not guilty of negligence if he makes a choice which a person of ordinary prudence placed in such a position might make even though he did not make the wisest choice. et al. Hon. vs. It is against public policy to invoke the negligence of another to escape criminal liability. he and his co-accused failed to monitor and provide close patient care. L-37396. (People vs. HELD: Guilty of simple negligence resulting to homicide. Both were declared guilty for the injury suffered by the third person. In such a case.A. only mitigating * The defense of contributory negligence does not apply in criminal cases committed through reckless imprudence. 1) Art.A.G. 2) Failure to lend on the spot assistance to victim of his negligence: penalty next higher in degree.. (Lantok. the two accused were drivers of two speeding vehicles which overtook vehicles ahead of them and even encroached on the other’s lane without taking due precaution as required by the circumstances. April 30. 8689.64 on mitigating and aggravating circumstances not applicable.A. When by imprudence or negligence and with violation of the Automobile Law. 4) Contributory negligence—not a defense. 1520) * The above-mentioned doctrine should be reconciled with the doctrine of “ concurrent proximate cause of two negligent drivers.” * In the case of People vs. Desalis. by the exercise of reasonable care and prudence. Taradji.G. The court could not determine in what proportion each driver contributed to the injury. The court found the concurrent or successive negligent act or omission of the two drivers as the direct and proximate cause of the injury caused to the offended party. the penalty is prision correccional in its medium and maximum periods. C. Doctrine of Pre-emption > It is a rule in collision cases which the driver of a motor vehicle to make a full stop when crossing a thru-street. who. if charged under Art 365 is only qualifying and if not alleged cannot even be an aggravating circumstance.Elements and Notes in Criminal Law Book II by RENE CALLANTA
2. Jr. C.G. 7763) Last clear chance doctrine> The contributory negligence of the injured party will not defeat the action if it be shown that the accused might. have avoided the consequences of the negligence of the injured party Emergency rule> An automobile driver. to prove that they exercised necessary and appropriate degree of care and diligence to prevent the condition.. the other driver who has the right of way has the duty to stop his motor vehicle in order to avoid a collision. to inform the parents of the child’s true condition. What is punished is not the effect of the negligence but the recklessness of the accused. then no crime is committed. 3 C.

7265. C. 67 O. It is just that you are not splitting the criminal negligence because the real basis of the criminal liability is the negligence.G. In the case of People vs. Eleazar )
Sigma Rho ( ΣΡ ) reviewers
242
.. it shows recklessness and disregard of traffic laws and regulations. that is where double jeopardy would arise. the failure of the actor to use reasonable care to prevent harm or damage constitutes reckless imprudence or simple negligence. the immediate personal harm or damage to property is perceivable and can be prevented by the exercise of reasonable care. Caluza.A. As the event is foreseeable. throwing off two of the passengers who boarded the truck without his knowledge. is inevitable.. Cuadra. (people vs.Elements and Notes in Criminal Law Book II by RENE CALLANTA
> Conviction of the accused in the charge of slight and less serious physical injuries through reckless imprudence constitutes double jeopardy to the charge of the crime of damage to property through reckless imprudence. if the maximum speed limit is 80 kilometers per hour and the vehicle driven at 30 kilometers per hour. So. the accused may only be prosecuted under one count for the criminal negligence. This is a violation of Section 59(b) of the Motor Vehicle Law (People vs. an accident occurs. C.
* If the criminal negligence resulted. So there would only be one information to be filed. * Overtaking of another vehicle is a normal occurrence in driving. if there is only one carelessness. As a consequence. C. Speed limits impose the maximum speed which should not be exceeded.A. 8330) * Driving within the speed limit is not a guaranty of due care. But when the overtaking is done from right. (People vs. The degree of care required of a motorist is not governed by speed limits but by the circumstances and conditions obtaining in the place at the particular time. You are not complexing slight when you join it in the same information. do not join only the homicide and serious physical injuries in one information for the slight physical injuries. In his effort to return the truck to the center of the road. the left front wheel of the truck fell into a ditch. * Accused is not criminally liable for the death or injuries caused by his negligence to trespassers whose presence in the premises he was not aware of. one of them died. 8060) Force majeure in relation to negligence. but because of the very slow pace of the vehicle.A. even if the negligence may bring about resulting injuries which are slight. the truck turned turtle. 53 O. for example. Songalla. * Since this is the mode of incurring criminal liability. It implies an extraordinary circumstance independent of the will of the actor or perpetrator. Unknown to him.
* If you split the criminal negligence. 58 O. It is likewise so when the overtaking is done while another vehicle is approaching from the opposite direction. serious physical injuries and slight physical
injuries. In negligence. accused was a truck driver. > Force majeure has reference to an event which cannot be foreseen or which being foreseen. the observation of the speed limit will not be acceptable evidence of due care.
* Do not separate the accusation from the slight physical injuries from the other material result of the
negligence. Cuadra was acquitted of the crime of reckless imprudence resulting in homicide and physical injuries. several persons boarded his truck and while driving along a slippery road which has a declinations of 25 degrees.G.G. even if there are
several results.. in homicide.